the effect of a researcher composed mouthpiece buzzing
TRANSCRIPT
University of Mississippi University of Mississippi
eGrove eGrove
Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School
2017
The Effect Of A Researcher Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing The Effect Of A Researcher Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing
Routine On The Intonation And Tone Quality Of Beginning Band Routine On The Intonation And Tone Quality Of Beginning Band
Brass Students Brass Students
Jason William Beghtol University of Mississippi
Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd
Part of the Music Education Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Beghtol, Jason William, "The Effect Of A Researcher Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing Routine On The Intonation And Tone Quality Of Beginning Band Brass Students" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 714. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/714
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE EFFECT OF A RESEARCHER COMPOSED MOUTHPIECE BUZZING ROUTINE ON
THE INTONATION AND TONE QUALITY OF BEGINNING BAND BRASS STUDENTS
A Dissertation
Presented for the
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree
The University of Mississippi
Jason Beghtol
May 2018
Copyright © 2017 by Jason Beghtol All rights reserved
ii
ABSTRACT
The present study is an investigation of the effect of an author composed mouthpiece
buzzing routine modeled by the teacher on beginning band brass students’ intonation and tone
quality. The subjects (N = 43) were sixth grade beginning band brass students from a large band
program in the northeast region of Mississippi. The experimental group (n = 27) buzzed a daily
routine modeled by their instructor at the beginning of each class period. The control group (n =
16) received no treatment and proceeded through normal classroom activities. The duration of
the instructional period was ten weeks. This study utilized a posttest only design. An
independent-samples t-test was conducted to analyze the data. Taken as a whole, there were no
statistically significant difference in the scores for treatment and control conditions. Results
suggest the inclusion of a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine does not have a significant effect on
beginning band brass students’ intonation or tone quality. Although not statistically significant,
the measures lean toward improved intonation and tone quality. Results of the t-tests may have
found no significant differences between means due to the wide ranges of variance in the two
sets of scores.
Keywords: intonation, tone quality, mouthpiece buzzing, embouchure, modeling
iii
DEDICATION
First and foremost, this dissertation is dedicated to my family. To my wife Ginger and my two boys Jackson and Johnson who have been very supportive, patient, and loving throughout this entire process. Also, to my mom Vicki for supporting me, not only throughout this process but also throughout my entire musical journey from the first day I put a trombone together to the present. Secondly, this dissertation is dedicated to all of the phenomenal musical educators and influences that have inspired and guided me to this point and will continue to walk with me down my path. May you all continue to influence others for years to come with the love of music that you have shown to me.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to my committee for insuring the quality of this research and for your guidance, as well as patience, of my experiences as a new researcher. Dr. Michael Worthy, Dissertation Supervisor, Department of Music Dr. Alan Spurgeon, Graduate Advisor, Department of Music Dr. John Schuesselin, Department of Music Dr. Marie Barnard, Department of Pharmacy Administration Furthermore, thank you to all family members, friends, colleagues, professors, and students−past and present−who have helped me throughout this journey. I would like to express a special thanks to Ashley Pruitt for serving as the instructor for this study who went above and beyond. Also, special thanks to: Chris Dunn, Andy Hall, Joe Holloway, Deborah Kehoe, Amanda Mattox, Bryan Mitchell, Leslie Mitchell, Paul Moton, Colleen Parman, Trevor Shoup, and all of my colleagues at Northeast Mississippi Community College, especially the Fine Arts Division. I would also like to thank the participants as well as their parents/guardians for allowing me to perform this study. Lastly, I would like to thank God for making all of this possible.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii DEDICATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 DELIMINATIONS OF THE STUDY ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 DEFINITION OF TERMS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 EMBOUCHURE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 EMBOUCHURE FORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------12 COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS ---------------------------------------------------------15 MOUTHPIECE PLACEMENT -----------------------------------------------------------------------19 TONGUING AND INTIAL ATTACK OF THE PITCH ------------------------------------------21 BUZZING ON THE MOUTHPIECE ----------------------------------------------------------------23 MODELING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28 BEGINNING INSTRUMENTAL/BAND INSTRUCTION --------------------------------------35 INTONATION/TONE QUALITY --------------------------------------------------------------------47 METHOD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51 INSTRUCTIONAL PROCEDURES -----------------------------------------------------------------54
vi
DATA COLLECTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------56 FIELD NOTES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------58 NULL HYPOTHESIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------59 RESULTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 FIELD NOTES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------61 INTONATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------63 TONE QUALITY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------67 DISCUSSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 IMPLICATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------77 QUESTIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ---------------------------------78 BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79 LIST OF APPENDICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88 APPENDIX A: TEACHER INSTRUCTIONS AND MOUTHPIECE BUZZING ROUTINE ------------------------------------------------------89 APPENDIX B: POSTTEST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------92 APPENDIX C: POSTTEST PROCEDURE ---------------------------------------------------------94 APPENDIX D: ADJUDICATOR LIST AND LETTER OF REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION ---------------------------------------------------------96 APPENDIX E: ADJUDICATION SHEET AND ADJUDICATOR INSTRUCTIONS ---------------------------------------------------------100 APPENDIX F: HUMAN SUBJECT AND CONSENT FORMS -------------------------------105
vii
APPENDIX G: FREQUENCY CHART -----------------------------------------------------------109 APPENDIX H: SUBJECTS' RESULTS IN FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------111 APPENDIX I: SUBJECTS' RESULTS IN CENT DEVIATION -------------------------------115 APPENDIX J: ADJUDICATORS' RATINGS FOR TONE QUALITY -----------------------123 APPENDIX K: IMAGES OF COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS -------------------128 APPENDIX L: IRB APPLICATION ---------------------------------------------------------------134 VITA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------142
viii
LIST OF TABLES
1. INTONATION MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION --------------------------------------- 64 2. TONE QUALITY MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION ------------------------------------ 68 3. FREQUENCY CHART (IN HERTZ) -------------------------------------------------------------- 110 4. TREATMENT GROUP RESULTS FOR INTONATION IN FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES (IN HERTZ) --------------------------------------------112 5. CONTROL GROUP RESULTS FOR INTONATION IN FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES (IN HERTZ) --------------------------------------------114 6. TREATMENT GROUP RESULTS FOR INTONATION IN CENT DEVIATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------116 7. CONTROL GROUP RESULTS FOR INTONATION IN CENT DEVIATION ------- -------118 8. RANGE AND MEAN FOR INTONATION IN CENT DEVIATION- TREATMENT GROUP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------119 9. RANGE AND MEAN FOR INTONATION IN CENT DEVIATION- CONTROL GROUP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------121 10. INTONATION MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION -------------------------------------122 11. ADJUDICATORS' RATINGS FOR TONE QUALITY-TREATMENT GROUP --------- 124 12. ADJUDICATORS' RATINGS FOR TONE QUALITY-CONTROL GROUP ------------- 126 13. TONE QUALITY MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION -------------------------------- 127
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1. RESULTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCE IN CENT DEVIATION OF INTONATION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------67 2. COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS-"SMILE" EMBOUCHURE --------------------- 129 3. COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS-EXCESSIVE PUCKER -------------------------- 130 4. COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS-"BUNCHED-UP CHIN" ------------------------- 131 5. COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS-"PUFFED-OUT" CHEEKS --------------------- 132 6. COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS-EXCESSIVE PRESSURE ----------------------- 133
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the United States instrumental music has become an essential part of the public school
curriculum. Although copious amounts of research investigate instrumental rehearsal techniques
and strategies, there is limited research on effective techniques for teaching beginning
instrumentalists and little that focuses on the psychomotor processes of learning how to play an
instrument (Sehmann, 2000). To obtain high caliber performances in the future, the instrumental
educator must strive for refinement of performance fundamentals from the earliest stages by
focusing on a foundation that is optimal for student success (Britten, 2005; Cooper, 2004). This
project will investigate the effects of the inclusion of a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine for
brass instrumentalists during their first year of instruction. For brass students, developing a
proper embouchure is their fundamental foundation. The resultant intonation and tone quality
will be the primary focus in this study.
A review of literature revealed no prior research on the daily implementation of a
mouthpiece exercise for beginning brass students. Therefore, the literature review is concerned
with brass pedagogy materials from well known pedagogues as well as related research studies
that had direct implications for this study. Although there is no empirical evidence supporting the
benefits of mouthpiece buzzing, one can corroborate the importance of mouthpiece buzzing by
2
reviewing pedagogic literature. Thompson (2001) went so far as to write an entire book with a
CD accompaniment completely devoted to mouthpiece buzzing.
Based on the review of literature by brass pedagogues, proper embouchure formation and
development contributes to the future success of brass instrumentalists. The Schirmer Manual of
Musical Terms (1978) states the embouchure is “the manipulation of the lips and the tongue in
playing a wind instrument.” For brass players “the setting of the lips must be formed in such a
way that they can be brought into oscillation by the motion of the air stream,” as stated by brass
pedagogue, Phillip Farkas (1962). The oscillation of the lips that Farkas is referring to is called
the “buzz.” Each musician must know the amount of muscle tension needed to effectuate the
appropriate embouchure buzz for the correct pitch to sound through his or her instrument.
To form a proper embouchure, some brass pedagogues recommend pronouncing the letter
“M” (Bailey et al, 2008; Fink, 1977; & Hunt, 1968). This does not automatically form the correct
embouchure, but it does place the lips in the approximate position. Moreover, keeping the
corners of the mouth firm allows for suitable embouchure formation (Bailey et al, 2008; Fink,
1977; & Hunt, 1968). By doing this, students are less likely to puff their cheeks while allowing
proper air flow from the lungs to, and through, the lips (Bailey et al, 2008; Fink, 1977). The
purpose of a proper embouchure is to allow the performer to play with efficiency, agility, and
flexibility. Although embouchures may slightly differ according to which brass instrument is
played and also may vary due to dental structure, there are commonalities to forming what
Farkas (1962) refers to as “the brass player’s face.”
The purpose of a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine is to focus on setting a proper
embouchure and to avoid common embouchure problems that may hinder a student’s performing
3
ability. Farkas (1962) believes that the slightest deviation from a proper embouchure can cause
“complete chaos” in its function. Some of the most common embouchure problems are a “smile”
embouchure, excessive “pucker,” “bunched-up” chin, “puffed-out” cheeks, and too much
mouthpiece pressure (Bailey et al, 2008; & Whitener, 2007). These are described in further detail
in the next chapter and are pictured in Appendix K.
Another topic discussed by brass pedagogues was mouthpiece placement on the lips.
While no two people will find the same placement ideal, there tends to be general consensus on
the optimal placement. Improper placement could cause embouchure problems and hinder
student’s ability to meet their full potential, which is why proper mouthpiece placement should
be monitored from the first steps of playing a brass instrument. There are many inconsistencies
that can develop from improper mouthpiece placement (Farkas, 1962).
Buzzing through the mouthpiece is the primary method of sound production for brass
instrumentalists. Author and brass pedagogue, James Thompson, wrote a method book
specifically focusing on mouthpiece buzzing. Mouthpiece buzzing refers to producing the sound
through the mouthpiece while it is not attached to the instrument. Thompson (2001) says there
are many benefits to buzzing on the mouthpiece alone if done with an observant and systematic
approach. By removing the instrument from the equation, mouthpiece buzzing allows the
musician to focus strictly on the embouchure and proper fundamentals. Fallis (2001) states that
mouthpiece buzzing may not be fun for beginning students, but the fundamental strengths he or
she gains by establishing a firm foundation will enable the student to progress more quickly.
This study focuses on the daily implementation of a mouthpiece buzzing routine for
beginning band brass students designed to improve the students’ intonation and tone quality. In
4
addition, this study is an attempt to strengthen the students’ embouchure, thus leading to better
intonation, tone quality and pitch accuracy. The series of exercises developed in this study
addresses the concept of playing pitches that, although they may be in the same valve
combination or slide position, are higher or lower than what is considered to be the normal
playing range of a beginning band student. The series of exercises also addresses the concept of
tone quality through the use of buzzing long tones on the mouthpiece.
Since instructor modeling will be the main method of instructional delivery in the
buzzing routine, the primary areas of the related research studies are focused on instructor
modeling/modeling behavior and beginning instrumental/band instruction. Also included are
studies referring to pitch accuracy, intonation and tone quality.
Studies have shown modeling to be a highly effective form of instruction (Taylor, 2006;
& Woody, 1999, 2003). In Teaching/Discipline: A Positive Approach for Educational
Development by Madsen & Madsen (1998), modeling is defined as “a technique whereby the
behavior that is to be taught is demonstrated for the learner.” The goal is for the learner to imitate
the behavior that is being taught. Modeling may be exhibited by instrumental performance or
singing. Instructors demonstrate counting or speaking the correct rhythm. Displaying posture to
the students is also a form of modeling which is a visual demonstration of the desired behavior.
Recordings, both audio and visual, may also serve as models (Hewitt, 2001). It is imperative that
models be of high quality so in turn the desired behavior being taught will be of high quality,
thus yielding optimum results.
In 2010, MacLeod came to the conclusion that in order for instructors to be effective
models they must posses the necessary skills to model both correctly and incorrectly. The teacher
5
should be able to model appropriate and inappropriate tone and techniques for the students. The
teachers should also develop a teaching style that is appropriate for the instructional pace of
beginning band students. Additionally, they should focus on targets such as pitch accuracy, tone,
and any other fundamentals towards obtaining pedagogical goals (Worthy & Thompson, 2009).
Along with developing an appropriate teaching style, how a teacher delivers information to the
students, whether it is correct or not, can have an effect on how students perceive the information
given to them. Hamann et al (2000) discovered that subjects preferred agreeable delivery skills
regardless of the quality of the content. So, modeling that is delivered well can be an effective
form of communicating information to students.
The purpose of this study is to determine if an author-composed mouthpiece buzzing
routine modeled by the teacher has an effect on beginning band brass students’ intonation and
tone quality. Over a ten-week period, the experimental group will perform a “call and response”
type of mouthpiece buzzing with their regular instructor as part of their daily beginning band
class. Other than the mouthpiece buzzing routine, the control group will have the same daily
instruction.
Delimitations of the Study
1. The subjects in the study are first-year brass instrumentalists. The researcher assumes the
students have little or no prior training on the mouthpiece alone without the instrument.
2. The researcher will administer only a posttest to the subjects. There will be no pretest due
to the students’ lack of ability to perform the test at the beginning of the study. The
subjects’ regular teacher is responsible for the mouthpiece buzzing routine for the
6
experimental group and the remainder of class instruction for both the experimental and
control group.
3. For the purpose of this study only trumpet, horn, trombone, and euphonium students will
be tested due to their commonalities in performance technique.
Definition of Terms
A review of literature revealed that both the pedagogues and researchers have a common
use of terminology to describe the concepts related to intonation and tone quality. The following
is a list of definition of terms that are essential to this study.
1. Aperture
“The opening in the lips created by the expulsion of the air column and that it should be in an
oval shape” (Bailey et al, 2008).
2. Buzzing
a. “The setting of the lip and face muscles in a position which will enable them to vibrate at
varying speeds and intensities when the lips are blown through” (Farkas, 1962).
b. “The lips must be formed in such a way that they can be brought into oscillation by the motion
of the air stream” (Whitener, 2007).
3. Embouchure
a. “The manipulation of the lips and the tongue in playing a wind instrument” (Baker, 1978).
b. “Controlled tension of the opposing sets of muscles in position for the purpose of producing a
tone when air is blown through the lips” (Hunt, 1968).
4. Oral Cavity
7
“The inside of the area of the mouth and throat” (Bailey et al, 2008).
5. Pitch Accuracy
Playing the desired pitch at the desired time. By the nature of beginning wind instrumentalists, a
number of notes will be played out of tune unless the player makes physical adjustments. This is
either done by adjusting their instrument or by adjusting their own body (Zurcher, 1972).
6. Characteristic Tone Quality
“The quality of a sound that distinguishes one instrument from another” (Millsap, 1999). “The
character of the sound achieved in performance on an instrument” (Randel, 1986). “It is the
baritone player’s business to sound like a baritone player and the horn player’s duty to sound
horn-like” (Farkas, 1956). It is the goal of the musician to exemplify all the desirable
characteristics of the instrument (Farkas, 1956).
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A review of literature found no prior research on a daily mouthpiece buzzing
exercise for beginning band brass students. Therefore, the review of literature is concerned with
brass pedagogy materials as well as related research studies that had direct implications for this
study. These are primarily focused in the area of instructor modeling/modeling behavior and
beginning instrumental/band instruction. The review of literature in this dissertation is divided
into these categories: 1. Embouchure, 2. Embouchure Formation, 3. Common Embouchure
Problems, 4. Mouthpiece Placement, 5. Tonguing and the Initial Attack of the Pitch, 6. Buzzing
on the Mouthpiece, 7. Modeling, 8. Beginning Instrumental/Band Instruction, and 9.
Intonation/Tone Quality.
In many schools in the United States instrumental music has become a dominant part of
the music curriculum, so much so that it has been noted by the Music Educators National
Conference (now known as The National Association for Music Education or NAfME) in The
School Music Program: Description and Standards. In this document it is recommended that
beginning wind instruction begin no later than by grade five (Sehmann, 2000). Although this is
stated in this document, beginning band in the Northeast Mississippi region usually begins in the
sixth grade. Sehmann (2000) goes on to state that little is found in research literature concerning
9
effective techniques for teaching beginning instrumentalists and that there is a lack of focus on
the psychomotor process of learning how to play an instrument. Researchers have focused on
instructional delivery rather than on content (Hamann et al, 1998).
Learning proper techniques and fundamentals for beginning instrumental students should
be a primary concern for music educators (Jones, 1989). Proper fundamental techniques are
foundational for students to build upon for their future as musicians. If poor technique and
fundamentals are established, slipshod habits can be created which can hinder student progress.
With beginning instrumentalists, there are many areas that can present problems and need careful
attention. Initial goals for beginning brass students include vibrating the lips (buzzing) to
produce a sound, placing of the mouthpiece, assembling the instrument, placing of hands and
fingers, posturing, producing accurate and steady tone, being able to buzz higher and lower
pitches, sliding positions or fingerings, breathing control, tonguing attacks, notation,
nomenclature, as well as caring and maintenance of the instrument (Zurcher, 1972). It is the
responsibility of the educator to understand these objectives and approach them in a manner
conducive to student success (Britten, 2005).
Many beginning band classes are not able to split into separate sections for brass,
woodwinds, and percussion. This complicates the instructional setting. Some aspects of
instrumental technique are easier to address in their respective instrumental families. For
example, woodwinds do not buzz to produce a tone; brass students do not have to concern
themselves with placement of the reed on the mouthpiece; neither brass nor woodwind students
have to focus on hand grip/placement on a drumstick. If beginning instrumental classes are able
to separate into their corresponding instrumental families, specific details for each group can
10
receive more attention. Brass students can focus on mouthpiece buzzing, woodwinds can spend
more detailed time on reed placement and tone production, and percussionists can devote the
necessary time on correct placement of the hand on a drum stick to achieve a proper strike. In
Scott Whitener’s (2007) book titled A Complete Guide to Brass, he states “classes of the same
instrument are generally more successful at the elementary level than classes of mixed
instruments.” He later recommends that keeping the class sizes small allows for more
individualized attention. Teachers also have limited instructional time. Teaching beginning
students can pose a number of complex demands, and it is in the hands of the educator to find the
most efficient and accurate way to convey information to the students.
Based on the extensive review of pedagogical literature for brass instrumentalists, many
materials were devoted to the importance and development of the brass embouchure leading to
the future success in brass instrumental performing. Brass experts have written many
pedagogical books and articles describing various components and techniques to forming a
proper brass instrumentalists’ embouchure. The next few sections will focus on the formation of
the embouchure along with common embouchure problems.
Embouchure
The embouchure, as stated by the Schirmer Manual of Musical Terms, is “the
manipulation of the lips and the tongue in playing a wind instrument.” Phillip Farkas played the
horn for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Cleveland Orchestra,
and the Kansas City Philharmonic and is considered to be one of the fathers of brass pedagogy.
Farkas says that describing one’s embouchure is one of the most difficult things in the world to
11
do. Farkas (1962) describes a brass player’s embouchure as “the setting of the lip and face
muscles in a position that will enable them to vibrate at varying speeds and intensities when the
lips are blown through.” Whitener (2007) says “the lips must be formed in such a way that they
can be brought into oscillation by the motion of the air stream.” It is the oscillation, or vibration,
of the lips that produces the sound on a brass instrument (Sanborn, 2001). This sound is referred
to as the buzz, or buzzing. Arnold Jacobs, who was the tubist for symphonies in Indianapolis,
Pittsburg, and Chicago and is also considered as a father of brass pedagogy, compares brass
players with singers. He states, “Instead of vocal chords in the larynx, we have vocal chords in
the larynx of the tuba, which is the embouchure” (Frederiksen, 2006).
The instrument acts as an amplifier, magnifying the sound that is being produced by the
vibrating lips (Farkas, 1962). The air passing through the lips as they are tensed is producing this
vibration. As the lips are vibrating at a constant speed a certain pitch is produced. For instance, if
the lips are vibrating 440 times per second then an A should sound (Farkas, 1962). Farkas goes
on to say that a musician, when forming an embouchure, has determined the correct placement of
facial muscles to allow the lips to go back into position while the air stream passes through them
producing a steady tone. To take it a step further, to produce a higher pitch the lips must vibrate
at a higher velocity. The muscles must tighten more to allow the lips to snap back at a faster rate
producing a higher tone. To produce a lower pitch the facial muscles must loosen for a slower
vibration still allowing air to pass through them, then going back into position to produce a lower
pitch (Farkas, 1962). As stated in the Teaching Brass manual, Bailey, Miles, Siebert, Stanley,
and Stein (2008) refer to this interaction as a “sort of tug-of –war” effect where there should be
no winner. As the air is passing through, the muscles must form an opening to allow air to pass
12
between the lips. This opening must vibrate from end to end. Farkas goes on to say that these
various contractions serve a dual purpose: “1. to change the tension and thickness of the lips and
2. to change the size of the lip opening.” Both of these changes must aid each other to produce
different pitches throughout the range (Farkas, 1962).
Brass musicians must know the amount of muscle tension needed to produce the
appropriate embouchure buzz for the correct pitch to sound through his or her instrument. The
instrumentalist will eventually have to learn how to vary his or her embouchure tension to span
three or four octaves to approximately 36 to 48 different notes, and in some cases more. The
musician is also required to play these notes in tune with good tone quality. The musicians are
also asked to jump between registers with fluency and, to make it even more challenging, play
different pitches at different dynamic levels ranging from pianissimo to fortissimo. Jacobs says
that as students continue to develop on their instruments, their muscle fibers and skills will
develop as well (Frederiksen, 2006).
Pedagogues have indicated that positioning the lips enables the lips to vibrate, thus
producing a tone. The vibrating of the lips is referred to as buzzing. If the lips vibrate at a faster
rate, a higher pitch is produced. Adversely, if the lips vibrate at a slower rate, a lower pitch is
produced. So, beginning brass students must learn the amount of muscle tension needed to
produce a desired pitch and buzzing the lips forming an embouchure does this.
Embouchure Formation
Brass pedagogues have different opinions on the proper formation of an embouchure.
The ideal is to form an embouchure, which allows the musician to achieve the most success on
13
his or her instrument. Characteristic embouchures are not naturally inherent. One must take what
nature has given and alter his or her physical make-up to form an embouchure. For example, a
person’s teeth are not able to be changed, formed, or developed to correctly fit the rim of a
mouthpiece. Compared to the muscles in a person’s hands or arms, the muscles that make up
one’s lips are very weak (Bailey et al, 2008).
When explaining embouchure formation, Reginald H. Fink says to pronounce the letter
M. When pronouncing the letter M, the teeth are slightly separated, the lower jaw is brought
down, and the lips are slightly rolled inward and firm. Pronouncing an M will not automatically
make a correct embouchure, but it does get the facial muscles set in a pucker-smile combination.
By keeping the corners of the mouth firm, it is less likely that students will puff their cheeks.
When a student puffs his or her cheeks, air escapes the straight-line air column from the lungs to
the instrument (Fink, 1977). Bailey et al (2008) believe the idea is to allow the orbicularis oris
muscle, the muscles surrounding the mouth, to control how much pucker is needed for the
embouchure and the jaw, along with the cheeks, to control the corners of the mouth.
Although embouchures will differ from person to person based on the physical make up
of the individual’s face, there are common characteristics that make up what Farkas calls “the
brass player’s face.” Farkas had his students observe many professional players over a long
duration. Students came to notice there is a definite facial expression regardless of which brass
instrument he or she is playing. This is what he refers to as “the brass player’s face” (Farkas,
1962). Edward Kleinhammer (1963) stated that upon observing some of the country’s finest
brass player’s embouchures they all appear somewhat different. He said it might depend on
dental structure, the possibility of an overbite, and the player’s focus on a particular tonal range.
14
Kleinhammer goes on to say, however, if the performer has a good tone, technical flexibility,
endurance, and a good range of notes as well as volume, that it is safe to assume the performer
has a good embouchure.
Bailey et al (2008) strongly believe embouchures differ according to brass instrument.
Nevertheless, there are common characteristics shared among the brasses. They say the inside of
the performer’s mouth and throat, which they refer to as the oral cavity, should be open and
relaxed with the tongue located on the bottom of the mouth. In concurrence with other brass
pedagogues, they also believe the performer’s jaw is to be lowered and firm and depending on
the performer’s facial structure, the chin should be flat or pointed. The upper and lower teeth are
to be approximately aligned and slightly separated. Next, Bailey et al refer to the opening in the
lips that is created by expulsion of air as the aperture and that it should be in an oval shape. With
the proper balance of pucker, along with firm corners of the mouth, the aperture should form
naturally (Bailey et al, 2008). Bailey et al (2008) conclude by saying to aid in flexibility the lips
should be moist.
Scott Whitener states in his book, A Complete Guide to Brass Instruments and Technique
(2007), that “sound and pitch are created in the mouthpiece by the vibration of the embouchure.”
Whitener agrees with the previous brass pedagogues about jaw placement, teeth alignment, as
well as a slight separation between upper and lower teeth. Whitener says to take a sheet of paper
and hold it approximately a foot and a half away from the lips. Then, blow a stream of air at the
paper while saying the word “tu” (“too”) which should cause the paper to fold back. Continue to
blow using the “u” (“oo”) until the air is completely expelled. Whitener says this will give the
correct sensation of blowing the air forward while forming an embouchure. When pronouncing
15
“tu,” the formation of the “u” brings the lips into a “slightly pursed configuration.” This
configuration creates a cushion to rest the mouthpiece upon. He goes on to say that this will help
protect the lips from excess mouthpiece pressure and by saying the “u” syllable the lips and the
facial muscles will contract in such a way that the embouchure will respond and vibrate with the
motion of the air stream.
Arnold Jacobs noted that too much attention can be placed on the appearance and feel of
the embouchure and that more emphasis should be placed on a player’s sound and function.
Jacobs goes on to say that everyone is born with lips and players develop them as they play
music. The player’s embouchure comes into fruition through the music a performer plays, not by
“mechanical procedures.” At first a player can have difficulty playing in the lower register but
through trial and error the embouchure learns to adjust with the low vibratory rate. Some
embouchures can appear unorthodox, yet they still work (Frederickson, 2006).
Through years of teaching brass techniques, pedagogues have concluded that even though
facial structure and physical characteristics can vary from person to person, there is a general
embouchure formation that can be considered a “brass player’s face” (Farkas, 1962). Having the
students pronounce the letter M is an easy and fairly accurate way to position the lips for a
proper embouchure formation. The purpose for a proper embouchure formation is an attempt to
set the students up for optimal success.
Common Embouchure Problems
Farkas believed that the slightest deviation from a proper embouchure could cause
“complete chaos” in the embouchure’s function. Weast (1965) says that observing and defining
16
problems in one’s embouchure would seem unnecessary but among the brass pedagogues there is
a discrepancy on what constitutes a problem. For instance, “It doesn’t make any difference how
you play as long as you get results,” is a view similar to Jacob’s embouchure approach, and is
somewhat dismissive in concept. Weast’s response to that is, “Results for what?” He believes a
musician should always strive for maximum development as if he or she were going to perform
the most strenuous piece of music. Weast proceeds to say that music for beginning band students
tends to avoid range, flexibility, and endurance problems making it incredibly difficult when
music of “professional caliber” is attempted (Weast, 1965).
Embouchure problems can be categorized by how they appear and how they sound. For
example, if a muscle in the embouchure quivers while a long tone is being played and there is a
slight waiver of the tone, the problem can be both seen and heard. Some problems are not easily
heard but are noticeable, such as an upper lip that overlaps the bottom lip. That embouchure may
produce a pleasant tone but the student may suffer in a different register. That sort of problem
may lay dormant for some time until the student begins working on “professional caliber” music
and is unable to perform the piece due to embouchure complications. Other embouchure
problems can be audible and not visual. For example, there may be a soft inner tissue vibration
occurring causing a buzz or a crack in the tone that cannot be seen but aurally the tone being
produced is not characteristic of the instrument. In this case visual detection is not possible
(Weast, 1965). It is the responsibility of the brass teacher to quickly diagnose embouchure
problems and solve them (Bailey et al, 2008). See Appendix K for images of common
embouchure problems.
The “smile” embouchure (see Figure 2 in Appendix K), which is sometimes referred to as
17
the stretch embouchure, is in reference to the corners of the mouth being upward as opposed to
downward causing the embouchure to appear as if it were in the form of a smile. The lips are set
into a stretching vibrating motion, hence the term “stretch embouchure” (Kleinhammer, 1963),
similar to the stretching motion of a rubber band (Bailey et al, 2008). The embouchure will not
function effectively (Whitener, 2007). Long-term effects of the “smile” embouchure could result
in the lack of upper range, flexibility, endurance, sharp tone (Bailey et al, 2008), and a limited
dynamic range (Farkas, 1956).
Another common embouchure problem is the “excessive pucker” (see Figure 3 in
Appendix K). The “excessive pucker” refers to the lip formation of the embouchure protruding
outward as opposed to the optimal slightly inward roll of the lips. The corners of the mouth are
slightly inward and the lips can sometimes extend around and beyond the rim of the mouthpiece
(Weast, 1965). Players with “excessive pucker” will tend to have fuzzy, unclear, and sometimes
a sputtering tone (Weast, 1965). They may also be very limited in their playing range as well as
playing with a darker/muffled sound (Bailey et al, 2008).
The “bunched-up” chin (see Figure 4 in Appendix K), sometimes referred to as a “peach
pit” chin, occurs when the chin is pronounced excessively upward (Zingara, 2006) when the
ideal position is for it to be slightly down and out (Bailey et al, 2008). The chin appears in
somewhat of an oval shape with multiple dimples similar to the pit of a peach. This is generally
caused by the rolling or bunching of the bottom lip and the clenching of the jaw (Bailey et al,
2008). Poor tone quality, lack in low range, as well as flexibility may ensue (Bailey et al, 2008).
The position of the chin is critical to correct playing, so critical that no great advancements can
be made until this problem is addressed and corrected (Farkas, 1962).
18
When forming a proper embouchure the cheeks should not be allowed to inflate and
“puff” outward. This problem is referred to as “puffed-out” cheeks (see Figure 5 in Appendix K).
Weak embouchure muscles allowing the cheeks to inflate disturbing the airflow from the lungs
to the instrument create “puffed-out” cheeks. It prevents the muscles from contracting and
supporting the proper embouchure (Whitener, 2007). Musicians with “puffed-out” cheeks tend to
play with less accuracy, sensitivity, and strength. It is also very difficult to play in the softer
dynamics (Bailey et al, 2008).
This next embouchure problem is excessive mouthpiece pressure (see Figure 6 in
Appendix K), which is probably the most common (Bailey et al, 2008). Excessive pressure exists
when musicians push the mouthpiece against their face more than necessary, typically, to
squeeze out notes in the higher register (Bailey et al, 2009 & Farkas, 1962). This compresses the
facial muscles resulting in fatigue, poor tone quality, lack of flexibility, and lack of sensitivity.
The mouthpiece rim rests against the lips to form the seal that connects the musician with the
instrument. The musician blows outward causing the lips to blow outward against the
mouthpiece so some pressure needs to be applied against the embouchure for support. Without
the mouthpiece, the lips would have added strain to maintain themselves, reducing endurance.
So, the correct amount of mouthpiece pressure is necessary for proper embouchure support
(Bailey et al, 2008).
Embouchure problems do not always have a predictable outcome. Specific problems can
have different effects on different students. Some students are able to work through embouchure
problems to become superior musicians. There are a variety of different ways to overcome
embouchure problems and clever players will usually find them. Herein lies the problem, a
19
highly creative and adaptable player can make more out of a faulty embouchure than a less gifted
player on a proper embouchure (Weast, 1965).
As stated earlier by Weast, an embouchure problem is “any aberration that causes muscle
strain, poor tone quality, consistent tonal inflections (scooping, dipping, quivers), limited
endurance, inaccurate notes, limited range, poor flexibility, and just as important, embouchures
which cannot realize their full, maximum potential.” It is the instructor’s duty to be aware of
common embouchure problems so he or she may identify these problems as they occur among
his or her students. Identifying common embouchure problems, and potentially eliminating them,
allows the students a better chance for a proper, more successful embouchure. A more successful
embouchure gives the students an adequate foundation to begin as a brass instrumentalist.
Images of these common embouchure problems can be located in Appendix K.
Mouthpiece Placement
One of the leading enigmas is how to find the most advantageous position for placing the
mouthpiece on the lips. Not all people will find the same location ideal, but there tends to be a
general consensus on where the placement should be. The ideal mouthpiece placement was
realized through years of successes and failures by hundreds of players (Farkas, 1962). Fink
(1977) says that the embouchure is not formed on the mouthpiece but rather the mouthpiece is
placed on the embouchure and that after a few times of placing the mouthpiece on the
embouchure the student will learn how far to spread his or her jaw to form an airtight seal with
the mouthpiece.
Mouthpiece placement should merit careful consideration since embouchure problems
20
stem from improper placement of the mouthpiece on the embouchure. For beginning brass
students, the lips are flaccid with no preconceived notions of where the mouthpiece should be
placed, it is easier to establish proper position as opposed to students who have already began
using improper placement, even if it has been only a few months (Farkas, 1962). A beginning
student should make every attempt to establish a well-centered mouthpiece placement provided
the student has normal lips and dental structure (Fink, 1956). It is preferred that the mouthpiece
be centered horizontally on the lips albeit, some professionals play slightly off center due to
variations in dental structure. Vertical placement, however, is more critical and cause for debate.
Mouthpiece location is usually described in terms of proportions of upper and lower lip in
relationship to the mouthpiece rim (Whitener, 2007).
There is not a standard embouchure for every brass instrument. Placement of the
mouthpiece can vary slightly between the brass instruments (Whitener, 2007). Each instrument
tends to respond better to a particular lip position helping formulate a general embouchure
setting (Farkas, 1962). In regards to a trumpet embouchure, Whitener (2007) says that equal
proportions of upper and lower lip in the mouthpiece is generally preferred but, sometimes the
musicians will use a slightly higher placement, approximately 60 percent upper lip and 40
percent lower lip. Placement for the horn is two-thirds upper lip and one-third lower lip in the
mouthpiece. Again, this is generalized and the proportions are not mathematically exact.
Trombone/Euphonium placement, on the other hand, isn’t as consistent or as specific as
the trumpet and the horn. (The trombone and the euphonium will be referenced together because
of their similar size and placement of mouthpiece.) Most professional players use more upper lip
than lower lip in the mouthpiece, similar to the two-thirds upper lip and one-third lower lip
21
formation like the horn (Fink, 1977), but enough musicians have been highly successful using
more lower lip than upper lip in the mouthpiece to prevent any strict rule about placement
(Farkas, 1962). Whitener (2007) recommends for trombone and euphonium players to use a
placement that is somewhat above half and half. Perhaps the unspecific placement of the
trombone/euphonium mouthpiece is due to the fact that it is larger. Since the trumpet and horn
mouthpieces are smaller, a sixteenth of an inch misplacement can proportionally be more
unsatisfying than the misplacement of the larger mouthpieces. Much like the
trombone/euphonium location, the placement of the tuba mouthpiece is somewhat above half and
half (Whitener, 2007). The tuba mouthpiece placement seems to be more consistent, perhaps due
to the fact that the large mouthpiece is stopped by the nose (Farkas, 1962).
The pedagogues concluded that the purpose for finding the most adequate location to
place a mouthpiece is to find the position that is the most advantageous and what is considered to
be proper mouthpiece placement was realized through the years from successes and failures
(Farkas, 1962). The pedagogues also state that beginning students’ lips have no preconceived
notion of mouthpiece placement and he or she should strive for a placement that is well-centered.
Because of the students’ lips having no preconceived notion, it is easier to position the
mouthpiece appropriately from the beginning of instrumental play as opposed to adjusting
students who already established improper placement, even if it has been a few months.
Tonguing and Initial Attack of the Pitch
For brass players, the function of tonguing is to aid the initial flow of air providing
different sounds at the beginnings of notes (Bailey et al, 2008). The sound begins with the
22
vibration of the embouchure produced by the air stream flowing through. The tongue gives the
beginning of the sound a clear and controlled attack. The tongue should be relaxed and work in
conjunction with the embouchure whether articulating in the higher or lower registers (Hunt,
1971). Whitener (2007) says, “pronouncing a syllable into the mouthpiece” does this.
When starting a note, the tip of the tongue should make contact with the backside of the
upper teeth (Bailey et al, 2008). The most common syllables are “tu” and “ta.” These syllables
have a clear beginning making for more precise attack of the note. For a more legato sound, a
softer pronunciation such as the syllables “du” and “da” are typically used so the attack isn’t so
percussive. The “tu” and “du” syllables are usually recommended because they form the
embouchure in a way similar to the desired embouchure formation. However, some low brass
players prefer the syllables “ta” and “toh,” and their legato counterparts “da” and “doh,” because
it makes the oral cavity slightly more open (Whitener, 2007). Whitener goes on to say these
syllables do not automatically position the embouchure like “tu” and “du.” Therefore, the players
that use “ta” or “toh” must learn to create a habit-forming method of contracting the muscles
after embouchure formation as a normal part of their preparation.
There is a concern if there is too much jaw movement. Beginning students should begin
using “tu” to establish proper embouchure formation. Once established, the player may then use
a “ta” or “toh” syllable (Whitener, 2007). The beginning of a note could be started with a “hu”
attack. The tongue is not in use when pronouncing a “hu” syllable. The underlying problem is
that the player cannot be quite sure when then vibration of the lips will “catch” the air stream
lacking the desired precision of the initial attack of the note. Such uncertainty is unthinkable in
the split-second timing needed for musicians. This is why using the tongue to begin a note is
23
preferred so the lips of the musician’s embouchure can vibrate “the exact moment they should”
(Farkas, 1962).
Buzzing on the Mouthpiece
Much time and energy should be devoted to the lips and focusing on processes that will
facilitate the sub-conscience level helping make decisions for the muscular actions in
embouchure formation (Sanborn, 1997). James Thompson refers to this as creating good habits.
Thompson wrote a method book specifically for mouthpiece buzzing. In his book, The Buzzing
Book (2001), Thompson says there are many benefits to buzzing on the mouthpiece if it is done
with an observant and systematic approach. It seems the more advanced a musician is, the more
important basic fundamentals like mouthpiece buzzing becomes (Sanborn, 2004). Buzzing helps
a musician use more air; because by being separated from the instrument, there is less air
resistance. Less air resistance allows for greater airflow. Greater airflow allows the lips to be
more relaxed to vibrate more freely producing a more resonant sound.
Fink (1977) says after buzzing on the mouthpiece that pitch placement on the instrument
is more secure as well as creating a louder/fuller tone. Mouthpiece buzzing also requires the
musician to be more dependent on his or her listening skills to produce the desired pitches
similar to the way a vocalist does. The musician has to form the embouchure to create the
internalized pitch without the aid of the instrument helping center the pitch through the
characteristics and responsiveness of the instrument. Thompson (2001) goes on to say
mouthpiece buzzing aids in finding the most efficient and consistent mouthpiece placement for
the individual. Finally, and what Thompson considers to be the most important, buzzing on the
24
mouthpiece allows the player to more easily develop and achieve refined aural/physical habits.
Thompson continues his discussion by claiming that buzzing on the mouthpiece while
holding it in a person’s hand can lead to alterations in neck and shoulder posture and
recommends the use of a BERP if possible. A BERP is a plastic buzzing apparatus that is affixed
to the lead-pipe of the instrument allowing the musician to correctly hold his or her instrument
while buzzing with the correct body posture. The mouthpiece is inserted into the BERP just as it
would be as if it were inserted into the lead-pipe of the instrument. Thompson says the use of a
buzzing apparatus employs the musician to use the same habits for mouthpiece buzzing as well
as playing on the instrument.
Kleinhammer (1963) says that making music on the mouthpiece alone can have good
results since the instrument is absent. Hindrances to correct and relaxed playing are more readily
detectable. He describes a scenario where the musician will set his or her instrument to the ideal
location for a specific pitch, concert F in this case. To produce the ideal pitch with the best tone
quality the lips should be buzzing an F while the instrument is in the position for the pitch F. If
done correctly, the musician can pull his or her face away from the instrument entirely and
maintain the buzz on the mouthpiece producing the pitch, F. When the buzz is in tune and the
mouthpiece is replaced on the instrument resonating the same pitch (Chappell, 2008), or as
Sanborn (2003) refers to this as the vibration of the lips and vibration of the pipe being in sync,
Kleinhammer says this is the musician’s finest tonal quality.
In 2002, James Roberts surveyed some of the leading American trombonists about their
current practice strategies. Buzzing on the mouthpiece is strongly endorsed by those who were
contacted. Of those that responded, 69.8% incorporate buzzing into their warm-up routine, and
25
39.5% view mouthpiece buzzing as extremely beneficial. 71.8% view buzzing as developmental
in nature. Roberts includes a prioritized list of ways mouthpiece buzzing can be helpful.
1. Developing a focused, centered sound
2. Pitch accuracy
3. Diagnostic value (air/lip/ear)
4. General focus – ease of response
5. Breath flow, control, and support
6. Slur quality and control
7. Embouchure efficiency – promotes embouchure tissue relaxation
8. Warm up faster – develop control
9. Develop range “Warm up while driving a car!” – reduce reliance on mouthpiece
pressure
10. As a remedial approach – aid to concentration
Good teachers realize the importance of fundamentals and know that students should
establish a solid fundamental foundation (Morrison, 2002; Unverricht, 2008). Building muscles
for proper embouchure formation takes time and practice (Criswell, 2009). From the beginning,
it is a daily struggle for beginning brass students to produce a characteristic sound on their
instruments. During the first few meetings of beginning band class, students are very enthusiastic
about playing a new instrument and will make any kind of sound they can. This is an opportune
time to introduce the students to buzzing on the mouthpiece. Bailey et al (2008) state mouthpiece
buzzing can, and should, be introduced on the very first day. The students will have to spend a
great deal of time on this task before they can move on to making music (Sanborn, 2004).
26
Fallis (2001) states beginning students should first approach the mouthpiece before
attempting anything on their instruments. The beginning student should spend at least two weeks
playing on the mouthpiece alone. At this stage, forming the correct embouchure, along with an
adequate air stream, is the primary focus and is of the utmost importance. Fallis’ prescription is
for the students to practice mouthpiece buzzing ten minutes twice a day for two weeks without
attaching it to the instrument. After this two-week period the embouchure has formed a well
controlled buzz and the student may then begin playing the instrument. From this period on, the
student may buzz five to ten minutes, once daily, before playing the instrument.
Unverricht (2008) says to include mouthpiece buzzing at every class meeting along with
all student evaluations. He agrees with making mouthpiece buzzing a part of the student’s daily
routine. Unverricht continues that students should begin practicing various pitches from the
beginning along with sirens, slides both up and down, and other images. Herriott (2009)
describes sirens as slow glissandi up and down. Try to make them even as they progress through
the registers (Sanborn, 2003). Begin with the interval of a fifth and then as progress ensues
increase the range (Herriott, 2009) ending on an octave (Bailey et al, 2008). It is important that
there are no interruptions in the sound. Try to make it “seamless.” Herriott says to emulate an
air-raid siren. Bailey et al, (2008) then recommends buzzing scales and intervals without the
siren, or glissando, effect.
Unverricht encourages instructors to try using pitch, articulation, and rhythm echoes from
the first day. Echoes are teacher models used in a question and answer format without notation
Cooper, 2004) and may be important for music educators (Steele, 2010). If woodwind and brass
students are together, have the brass students buzz on their mouthpieces along with notes the
27
woodwind students are playing. Norwegian trombonist Astrid Nokleby began working with
students younger than the average age of beginning band students, on playing the trombone.
Nokleby recommends teaching without using sheet music to focus more on the language of
sound first before notes on paper. She then instructs the teacher to choose songs based on his or
her experience incorporating technical aspects for the students (Kavanaugh, 1996). Gibson
(1967) recommends buzzing melodies on the mouthpiece that are recognizable to the students,
for example, patriotic or folk music such as America. To avoid too much pressure while working
on the mouthpiece, students should hold the mouthpiece with their thumb and first two fingers
(Unverricht, 2008) at the base of the shank (Herriott, 2009).
For more advanced students, brass pedagogue Charlie Vernon (1995) recommends for his
students to spend the majority of their mouthpiece buzzing time buzzing the actual music he or
she is working on. When beginning mouthpiece practice, Vernon recommends beginning in the
middle range, then extending in both directions in the high and low registers. The goal is to make
every register sound as free and easy as the middle register. The lips should not be forced to buzz
too loud or too high.
Although for beginning students buzzing on the mouthpiece may not be fun, the
fundamental strengths they gain by establishing a firm foundation will enable them to progress
more quickly than if they began directly on the instrument itself from day one (Fallis, 2001).
Through his years of brass pedagogy, Fink (1977) has found mouthpiece buzzing to develop
more firmness in the embouchure making for more secure instrumental playing and since there is
minimal research on mouthpiece buzzing, it poses the fundamental question of this study:
“Would the incorporation of a daily mouthpiece buzzing exercise have an effect on beginning
28
brass students?”
Modeling
Teachers often work on rehearsal strategies and methods of instruction to guide students
to be more artistic and musical in their performances. Teachers address areas such as dynamics,
rhythm, phrasing, etc., to help the students mature musically. One of the methods teachers use to
get their interpretation across to the student is modeling (McAllister, 2009). Since the primary
delivery of information in this study is through the use of teacher modeling, this section is
devoted to literature on the effect of modeling. Modeling is a way of representing,
understanding, storing, and communicating information to others (Grimland, 2005). In 2006,
Jeremy Polk wrote an article titled, “Traits of Effective Teachers,” stating that modeling is one of
the ten basic characteristics of effective teachers and that it is the skill that effective teachers do
best. When modeling, the goal of the teacher is to have the student imitate what is being
instructed (Grimland, 2005). During modeling instruction alternations between teacher
demonstration and student imitation happen constantly (Dickey, 1992).
In 1992, Dickey reviewed research investigating various types of modeling in the
classroom. He stated that verbal instruction, albeit necessary, could be misinterpreted. The
students may misconstrue words. When verbal instruction is used for directions such as, “the
starting pitch is concert F” or “play like I play,” it should be concise and kept to a minimum.
Make sure the instruction is primarily nonverbal (Fredrickson, 2005; Goolsby, 1997). He
concluded that modeling was an effective way of communicating information in music
classrooms. Dickey also concluded that modeling is more effective than verbal descriptions and
29
in order for teachers to be effective models they must posses the necessary skills to model both
correctly and incorrectly (MacLeod, 2010).
There are different forms of modeling. One way is to demonstrate the musical behavior
by performing the behavior on an instrument or by singing (Jones, 1989) the desired behavior to
the student. Another is to count or speak the correct rhythm. Posture may also be modeled
providing the students a visual demonstration of what is to be expected. Even a recorded model
can be a highly effective tool to use for a student (Hewitt, 2001).
Studies have shown modeling to be a highly effective form of instruction (Droe, 2006;
Taylor, 2006; Woody, 1999, 2003) tends to be superior to cases without a model(Henley, 2001),
but not in all cases (Montemayor, Wiltshire, & Morrison, 2004). In 2001, Paul Henley performed
a study using 60 high school instrumentalists using model versus no model along with a steady
increase in tempo versus alternating fast and slow tempos. The subjects were assigned to one of
six experimental groups. Each subject sight-read an etude and then practiced the etude six times
using one of six different methods combining one of the two variables, modeling and tempo.
Then each subject performed a posttest. Each subject played the etude a total of eight times
(pretest, six treatment trials, posttest). Results indicated no significant difference in tempo
patterns but there was a significant difference with the model versus no-model treatment finding
the model treatment to be superior (Henley, 2001).
Another study in 2006 by Woody found no significant difference between aural
modeling, verbal instruction, and imagery/metaphors. Subjects were 36 college level pianists.
They performed a musical passage after being given one of those three forms of instruction. The
results indicated the pianists could accommodate all three types of instruction used in the study.
30
An earlier experiment by Thomas Goolsby (1996) showed experienced teachers model more
during a rehearsal than novice teachers. Goolsby examined the rehearsal time spent in verbal
instruction, verbal discipline, nonverbal modeling, and actual instrumental performance in
experienced, novice, and student band director’s teaching methods and determined that less
experienced directors do not model nearly as much as experienced directors.
A later study performed by Colprit (2000) was an observation and analysis of the Suzuki
Method for teaching the study incorporated modeling in the teaching approach of 12 expert
Suzuki string teachers. The purpose of this study was to determine how rehearsal time is
dispersed. Even though a large portion of the communication is teacher talk, 20% of the
communication is teacher modeling. Evelyn Orman (2002) performed a similar study to observe
and analyze the use of class time in elementary general music classes in relation to the Standards
for Music Education. Subjects were 30 experienced elementary music specialists teaching in a
large, affluent metropolitan area ranging from 10 to 26 years of experience. As with the Colprit
observation, Orman observed the majority of time spent is teacher talk at 46.36% and teacher
modeling was next at 21.57%. Some teachers are inadequate models therefore are hesitant when
using modeling as an instruction tool.
Sang (1982), who performed many studies on instructor modeling, found a significant
relationship between a teacher’s ability to model and the amount of time spent modeling when
instructing. He included three observable teaching techniques as independent variables:
modeling skills, discrimination skills, and diagnostic skills. The subjects were students from two
consecutive semesters of a university instrumental music methods courses. A panel of judges
used an observational instrument devised for the study to quantify the observations from the
31
videotaped sessions of the subjects teaching in a field situation. The results indicated that all
three of the teaching techniques contribute to instructional effectiveness. More specifically,
modeling was noted as the most effective single contributor to variance in instructional
effectiveness.
As a result of his previous study, Sang (1987) performed a second study to observe the
inconsistencies between modeling theory and the amount of verbalization in actual teaching
segments. Nineteen teachers of first-year instrumental music classes randomly chose students to
aid in the participation of this study. Each teacher was given a series of tests to determine their
modeling ability. After one year of study the students were asked to perform the same exercise
used to evaluate the teacher’s modeling ability. The results were recorded and evaluated by a
panel of professional musicians. Sang found there to be a significant relationship between a
teacher’s ability to model and the amount of time teacher modeling was used in instruction. Sang
further concluded that a teacher’s modeling ability combined with the teacher’s use of
demonstration has a bearing on level of student performance (Dickey, 1992; Hellman, 2002;
Sang, 1987).
In a more recent study, Katherine Frewen (2010) performed an experiment showing that
children who were more familiar with the melody played more accurately than the children who
were not. The experimental group listened to a model of a melody repeatedly to familiarize
themselves with music while the control group had no model. Then both groups played a four-
measure melody on a keyboard. The control group performed less accurately than the
experimental group. Another modeling study performed by Taylor (2006) examines the
effectiveness of instruction in an elementary music setting. Eight Orff-based instructors that were
32
level 1 certified or higher were videotaped during class and analyzed. The results indicate most
student problems were related to precision. Most of the instructional targets were related to
students’ technique. This study also indicates students were more successful when their
instructors used clear, explicit directives and positive modeling.
It is up to the instructor to give the best, and most accurate, model possible (O’Herron,
2007; Yarbrough et al, 1991; Yarbrough et al, 1992). The better a model is portrayed for the
students, the better their behavior reciprocation (Dammers, 2009; Yarbrough et al, 1991). In a
study performed by Hewitt (2001), 82 seventh through ninth grade instrumentalists (woodwind,
brass, and percussion) were randomly assigned to one of eight treatment groups and measured on
the effects of modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening on performance. The results indicated
that subjects who listened to a model improved more in the areas of tone, melodic accuracy,
rhythmic accuracy, interpretation and overall performance, but not in the areas of intonation,
technique/articulation, or tempo. Modeling groups were no different in any of the performance
sub-areas when subjects were not self-evaluating.
In 2002, Hewitt performed a similar study, this time on the self-evaluation tendencies of
junior high instrumentalists. The purpose of this study was to determine the students’ self-
evaluation tendencies over time, to examine if the model or no-model treatment had an effect on
the self-evaluation, and to determine if there is a relationship between self-evaluation accuracy
and achievement in music performance. The subjects were 41 junior high woodwind, brass, and
percussion students in grades 7 through 9. At the beginning of the school year the students were
auditioned by their band director and placed into 3 groups based on their performance. The
groups were labeled low-ability ensemble, middle-ability ensemble, and high-ability ensemble.
33
The subjects were assigned to either a group with an aural model or a group with no model.
Recordings performed by university music majors served as the aural models. The dependent
variables in the study were music performance achievement and self-evaluation accuracy. The
results showed no improvement of self-evaluation scores over time regardless of model-group
condition. The results did indicate a moderate positive correlation between model-group tempo
and combined group interpretation posttest scores (Hewitt, 2002).
In 1980, Baker performed a study where students were exposed to appropriate and
inappropriate models to determine what they perceived to be considered “correct” based upon
the model presented to them. Two studies were performed simultaneously involving 39 fourth-
grade students and 36 third-grade students. The fourth-grade subjects were randomly assigned to
groups while the third-grade subjects were left intact due to the inflexibility of their schedule.
The researcher taught seven lessons over a four-week period on tempo and dynamics to each
group. Duration of the lessons ranged from 25 to 30 minutes each. The deemed “appropriate”
classes learned to sing three lullabies softly and slowly along with three sea shanties sung loudly
and quickly. The group labeled as “inappropriate” learned to sing three lullabies loudly and
quickly along with three sea shanties sung softly and slowly. A recording of each song was used
for teaching the music. Recordings were also made of the subject’s performances. Although
there was no statistical difference on the preferred responses of the students with appropriate
models and students with inappropriate models, there was indication of a significant correlation
between what the students considered “correct” and the model presented to the them, whether
appropriate or inappropriate (Dickey, 1992).
By exposing students to models they eventually become more aware of musical attributes
34
and tend to notice more details in their own playing when self-evaluating. Mark Montemayor
and Emily Moss (2009) performed an experiment with two groups of pre-service teachers. The
experimental group was given a recording of the ensemble piece they were working on with an
ensemble. When self-evaluating, the experimental group displayed greater concern for accuracy,
and their evaluations were more critical of the ensemble. Despite the results in favor of teacher
model use for instruction there is still a relatively infrequent use in the classroom (Dickey, 1992).
Similarly in 1989, Benson performed a self-observation study to determine the effects of
observational analysis of one’s own modeling in an applied setting to see if there is a change in
behavior. Three violin teachers were videotaped teaching violin lessons to children between the
ages of 10 and 12. The treatment was the observation and analysis of models. The results
indicated the experimental teacher “acted into a new way of thinking” as stated by Madsen &
Madsen (1983). A problem is that future teachers sometimes don’t know why they should focus
on their own performance ability, because they are pursuing teaching as a career, not
performance (Polk, 2006). Modeling can be an important tool and should be implemented
whenever possible (Polk, 2006).
Research has shown modeling to be a highly effective form of instruction (Taylor, 2006;
Woody, 1999, 2003) and tends to be superior to cases with no-model (Henley, 2001), but not in
all cases (Montemayor, Wiltshire, & Morrison, 2004). The goal for modeling is to have a student
imitate a desired behavior being presented to him or her by the instructor (Dickey, 1992). Models
may be audio (such as vocal singing, playing an instrument, or the use of a recording) or they
may be visual (demonstrating proper posture or instrumental carriage) (Hewitt, 2001). Sang
(1987) concluded that modeling was noted as the most effective single contributor to variance in
35
instructional effectiveness.
Beginning Instrumental/Band Instruction
Since this study is being performed in a beginning band setting, the literature in this
section primarily focuses on instruction given to beginning or middle school level musicians.
Music instruction in a beginning band setting could pose numerous demands on the instructor to
have a clear and concise curriculum (MacLeod, 2010). Educators are constantly searching for
effective approaches for transferring knowledge to their students.
There have been numerous studies on expert teachers in instrumental music settings that identify
qualities of effective and/or ineffective teaching but there is minimal research in the beginning
band setting (Worthy & Thompson, 2009) so, the literature reviewed in this section focuses in
the area of beginning, or early, instrumental instruction, not necessarily instrumental band
setting. Included were studies and research incorporating some form of modeling due to the
nature of the author’s study.
How a music teacher or instructor relays information has an effect on how students
perceive information and what information students actually learn and retain. Hamann et al.
(2000) performed a study designed to see if a teacher’s delivery skills have any effect on
students’ perception on the material being taught. Five hundred eleven university music students
viewed videotapes of lessons containing 4 randomly placed teaching episodes to determine if the
delivery of information has an effect on the perception of the information. Episodes were divided
into good delivery with good content, good delivery with bad content, bad delivery with good
content, and finally bad delivery with bad content. Results indicated subjects liked, and were
36
more interested in, the episodes with good delivery skills regardless of content.
Observation studies were reviewed to determine how experienced teachers give
instructions and in what manner they deliver the information. MacLeod (2010) observed
experienced band and orchestra instructors teaching an unfamiliar musical passage to a first-year
instrumental class to see how the instructor relays information to his or her students. MacLeod
compared and contrasted how experienced band and orchestra instructors taught the unfamiliar
musical passage. The instructors were observed and recorded during the second semester of their
first year working with their instrumental ensemble. The instructors were to select a brief,
unfamiliar musical passage that has not been previously addressed and teach the passage to their
class. The researcher identified, and operationally defined, 12 observed behaviors. These
behaviors were: echoing technique, question and answer, verbal instruction, co-verbal
instruction, modeling with instrument, modeling with instrument during student performance,
modeling without instrument, modeling without instrument during student performance,
conducting, student performance, pedagogical touch (teacher physically assisted individual
students), and classroom management. The results indicated there was a statistically significant
difference for nine of the twelve behaviors. Orchestra teachers used echo techniques, modeled on
their instruments, and performed along with their students more frequently than band teachers.
Band teachers used more verbal instructions, conducting, question and answer techniques, and
student performance than orchestra teachers. Orchestra teachers also used co-verbal instruction
and pedagogical touch with greater frequency than band teachers. There was no statistically
significant difference observed for classroom management, modeling without an instrument, and
modeling without an instrument during student performance between the two groups.
37
In a similar study, Worthy and Thompson (2009) observed three expert beginning band
teachers to identify common characteristics among them. These teachers were chosen by
recommendations made by university faculty, then observed and videotaped during three
consecutive beginning band classes. Observation notes were collected and organized into
Classroom Management, Instructional Materials/Activities, and Teaching Techniques/Strategies.
The videotaped recordings were reviewed to identify rehearsal frame targets such as
Articulation, Dynamics, Intonation/Tone, Pitch Accuracy, Rhythm Accuracy, Tempo, Technical
Facility, Multiple, and Other. The researchers added additional targets to accommodate a
beginning band setting. These targets were Posture/Instrumental Carriage, Breathing/Airflow,
and Embouchure.
The results showed the expert teachers demonstrated proactive approaches to classroom
management. The students were immediately engaged upon entering the classroom. The lesson
objectives were clearly visible on the board. The students were frequently reminded of the
classroom rules and procedures. Any inappropriate conduct was addressed immediately and was
never allowed to escalate. At no time during the rehearsal were the students left idle. There was
always some form of instructional activity. The teachers were mobile and arranged the seating in
a matter to allow for movement around the classroom. The teachers were always in close
proximity to the students and kept them actively on task. The teachers emphasized the
development of characteristic tones and pitch accuracy and their priorities were addressed
throughout the lesson. Primary instructional goals, such as breathing and embouchure, were
observed as well. The teachers also modeled both appropriate and inappropriate tone qualities for
the students as well as offered customary feedback and specific instructions for improvement.
38
Worthy and Thompson concluded by stating that different skills are required when teaching
beginning band than those required of a typical band rehearsal. Teachers, especially novices,
should focus on distinctive characteristics of the particular instruments. The teacher should be
able to model appropriate and inappropriate tone and techniques for the students. The teachers
should also develop a teaching style appropriate to the instructional pace of beginning band as
well as focus on the didactic targets which are targets intended to teach, such as: pitch accuracy,
tone, and any other fundamentals pertaining to completing the pedagogical goals.
One method of delivering information to students is teaching by rote (Levinowitz, 1989).
Rote teaching is modeling the desired behavior to the students (Levinowitz, 1989). In 1974,
Schleuter reviewed a dissertation by John Sperti (1974) on applying Suzuki techniques to
beginning instrumental instruction on the clarinet. Sperti had an experimental group, and a
control group, work over a thirty-two week period on the same material with different teaching
approaches. The subjects in the experimental group were taught by rote along with parental
supervision of home practice while the subjects in the control group were presented solutions to
performance problems and assigned drill and home exercises with subsequent review. Sperti
finds statistically significant results in favor of the experimental group. Schleuter believes that, in
general, this study is an excellent addition to the body of research in music education in the area
of instrumental education.
In 1991, Dickey performed an instructional delivery study comparing verbal instruction
and non-verbal instruction on effectiveness in instrumental music ensembles. The purpose of his
experiment was to determine if instrumental music students taught by using modeling strategies
would develop better melodic ear-to-hand skills, kinesthetic response skills, and general music
39
discrimination skills than students taught by using verbal strategies. Subjects were 128 students
from three middle schools in a large suburban school district in southeastern Michigan. This
study was in a pre-test/posttest design. There were two teachers giving instruction to the subjects,
the researcher and a replicator. The researcher and the replicator each taught one class using
modeling strategies and one class using verbal strategies equally in 4 total classes of subjects.
The videotaped posttest sessions were analyzed by two independent judges to determine the
percentage of each class period that was devoted to verbal strategies, modeling strategies, and
other activities in order to verify the author’s intent. The results indicated the subjects in the
modeling strategies group achieved significantly higher scores on ear-to-hand and kinesthetic
skills but did not achieve significantly higher scores in general music discrimination skills.
In another experiment on delivering instructional content, Wlodarczyk (2010) performed
a study on beginning guitar students where the subjects were separated into three groups. Each
group was given instruction in one of three ways: audio modeling only, audio and visual
modeling, and a control group. The subjects were 35 major and non-music major college level
students. Subjects had to sing “Happy Birthday” while accompanying themselves on their
guitars. The subjects were unaware of what group they were assigned to. They were given
instructions upon their arrival at their designated time. The dependent variable was the amount of
time it took each subject to perform the song accurately. Wlodarczyk stated that prior musical
knowledge does not play a role in beginning level guitar skill acquisition. This study was posttest
only design. There was no significant difference between the two groups, but there was a
significant difference between treatment conditions with the audio-visual group completing the
task in a shorter amount of time. Instructor modeling is supported by these findings.
40
In 2010, Haston performed a study that ended with mixed results regarding modeling. His
study was designed to assess the effectiveness of teaching beginning wind instrumentalists using
a sound-before-sight approach. The idea behind the study was to determine if there was a
significant difference in presenting new material to students by rote using a call and response
technique, along with modeling, before verbal or written instructions are given. Subjects were K-
6 students obtained from three elementary schools in Northern Virginia. The experimental group
was taught with an aural/modeling emphasis while the control group was taught with a visual
emphasis. The subjects met for 15 weeks for one hour per week. This study was a posttest only
design. The researcher along with three independent judges scored the data. Results were not
statistically significant although, the scores indicated teaching with an aural/modeling emphasis
does not hinder performance skills and may be beneficial.
How an instructor relays information to his or her students has an effect on student
interest and perception. But what if students were given self-instructional materials and given
instructions for music preparation? In 1971, Puopolo performed an experiment using self-
instructional practice materials to aid beginning instrumentalists. This study investigated the
possibility of adapting programmed instruction as a procedure for making individual
instrumental practice more efficient. The subjects were 52 fifth-grade beginning trumpet/cornet
students from six elementary schools. The subjects were pretested in the three behaviors serving
as independent variables: 1. music achievement, 2. socio-economic status, and 3. I.Q. Each week
the teacher programmed a self-instruction tape for the experimental group. Each tape included a
model performance, simple piano accompaniment for model performances, and verbal
instructions. After the conclusion of the 10-week treatment period, the Watkins-Farnum
41
Performance Scale was administered as a posttest. Each subject of both groups made a recording
of the posttest and all of the recordings were sent to a scorer. The scorer was unaware of which
group each student participanted in. Puopolo came to the conclusion that students with a below-
average IQ benefited significantly more in performance achievement than students with an
above-average IQ. The subject’s reaction to the programmed practice was positive. They
preferred it to non-programmed practice and believed they were benefiting from it.
Another study involving the use of taped models was performed by Rosenthal (1984).
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was an effect on the use of one of four
different kinds of training tapes on the performance of college woodwind and brass majors.
Rosenthal employed the use of a professional violinist for the model performance of the selected
etude. She then developed a script addressing aspects of the etude, such as: tempo, style,
rhythmic interpretation, phrasing, and dynamics. Subjects were 44 graduate and upper-level
undergraduate students. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups.
The treatment groups were (a) a training tape consisting of verbal instruction and instrumental
modeling; (b) a training tape with instrumental modeling only; (c) a training tape with verbal
instruction; and (d) no training tape. Subjects were allowed to practice for three minutes
following the instructional tape. The subjects with no training tape were given ten minutes to
practice the etude. Then the subjects performed the etude on his or her instrument. Two
independent observers determined the number of measures played with correct notes, rhythm,
tempo, dynamics, and phrasing/articulation in a 20% sample of the recordings. There were
significant differences found among all groups for notes, rhythms, dynamics, and tempo, but not
for phrasing/articulation. The model-only group steadily attained the highest scores on all
42
variables. Rosenthal makes a case for the use of the model-only treatment. It seemed that the
verbal guidance, along with the model treatment, hindered the musician’s performance when
compared to the model-only treatment.
Rosenthal, Wilson, Evans, and Greenwalt (1988) performed a similar study four years
later determining the degree of effectiveness of modeling, singing, and silent analysis with, and
against, unstructured practice or sight-reading. The purpose of this study was to determine the
effect of five different practice conditions on performance accuracy. The subjects were 60
graduate and upper-level undergraduate college students majoring on a brass or woodwind
instrument. Each student was randomly assigned to practice either by (a) listening to a taped
performance of the etude performed by a professional violinist; (b) practicing by singing the
etude; (c) studying the etude silently; (d) practicing the etude on his or her instrument; (e) or as a
control group. Like the previous study, after three minutes of treatment each subject was asked to
perform the etude on his or her instrument. The performances were recorded and analyzed for
accuracy of pitches, rhythms, articulation, and phrasing/dynamics. The results indicated
modeling and practice groups had the most accurate scores. It was theorized that listening to a
model alone is almost as effective as practicing on one’s instrument (Dickey, 1992; Rosenthal et
al, 1988).
Another use of an audio model is a study performed by Montemayor et al in 2004. The
purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a recorded model in an ensemble
setting. Bands from three middle/junior high schools and two high schools from the Pacific
Northwest participated in a study lasting 5 weeks. During the treatment period, extant
professional or collegiate recordings of one of each of the school’s chosen selections were
43
provided for an aural model. Once a week, for the experimental group, the band director played a
recording of the entire piece for the band members while they followed along on their individual
parts silently. On another day during the week the band director will play an excerpt of the
recording to isolate a specific section of music the band director is intending to practice. In
addition, once a week the subjects completed a five question “progress report” for each piece of
music. At the conclusion of the experiment, the musical excerpts were collected and analyzed
independently by five experienced instrumental music teachers. The results indicated no
difference in achievement between model and no-model pieces. On the students’ evaluations,
there were more modest achievement gains and overall more positive gains for model pieces
(Montemayor, Wiltshire, & Morrison, 2004).
Similarly, Linklater (1997) performed an experiment with the use of audio- and
videotaped models on performance achievement with beginning clarinetists. The purpose of this
study was to determine if beginning clarinetists would show improvement by using a recorded
model to aid in home practice. One hundred forty-six volunteer fifth and sixth grade beginning
clarinet students in eight schools from six suburban and rural communities were randomly
assigned one of three cassette tapes: a videotape, a modeling audiotape, or a non-modeling
audiotape (instrumental accompaniment only). The first experimental group received a
videocassette tape that provided a video as well as audio model for the subjects. The second
experimental group received audio-only cassette tape that provided clarinet models as well as
instrumental accompaniments. The third group served as the control group receiving an audio-
only cassette tape only including instrumental accompaniments. There was no clarinet modeling
included in this group. The modeling video and audio tapes consisted of two sections. The first
44
section paralleled the instructional sequence of the first 18 pages of their textbook. The second
section consisted of 11 songs from the students’ textbook. At the conclusion of the 8-week
treatment period, the first posttest was administered. Performance achievement was measured by
the IPT (Instrumental Performance Test) designed by the researcher. It was designed to measure
the effect of modeling as well as the students’ overall instrumental performance skills. The
etudes chosen were based on the curriculum materials experienced by the subjects. The study
concluded with two further posttests that were administered to observe retention of students’
performance achievement. The subjects were allowed to establish their own tempos for all of the
exercises. Results indicated no statistically significant difference although the mean model scores
were higher than no-model.
Anderson (1981) also performed a study on the use of a tape-recorded audio model for
home practice on young clarinet students to determine if the model would affect the acquisition
of selected sight-reading and performance skills. Eighty students from two sixth grade centers in
the Austin (Texas) Independent School District were divided into an experimental group and a
control group. The duration of the treatment period was eight weeks. At the beginning of the
treatment period, the subjects in the experimental group were provided a cassette tape containing
solo clarinet performances of the music exercises assigned to both of the groups. Along with
practicing the exercises at home, the subjects also worked on the exercises during a woodwind
class at school. Subjects were required to turn in weekly practice charts to determine the amount
of time spent practicing the exercise. To ensure reliability, 20% of the subjects were asked to
record their home practice session and the results of their home-recorded practice sessions were
compared to practice charts. In the beginning of the final treatment week, the subjects were
45
assigned the Practiced Performance Evaluation Test. This consisted of the “final check-out” page
of their band method book used during the duration of the study. Concluding the treatment
period, the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale (Form A) served as the posttest to determine the
effect on sight-reading skills. The skills being measured were pitch-reading, rhythm-reading,
tempo accuracy, and intonation accuracy. Pitch-reading was measured by counting one error for
any measure in which the pitch being played wasn’t the notated pitch. Rhythm-reading was
measured by one error for any measure in which one or more pitches or rests weren’t played as
notated. Tempo accuracy was determined by the deviation of the amount of time taken by the
subject’s performance compared to the amount of time of the performance taken by the
prescribed tempo given. Four pitches from each test were selected to measure intonation
accuracy. Intonation was measured by deviation in cents for each pitch. The results of
Anderson’s study resulted in no statistically significant difference between the groups on the use
of the tape-recorded model on the sight-reading or performance skills of the young clarinetists.
In another study, Delzell (1989) performed an experiment on musical discrimination
training in beginning instrumental music classes. This study was designed to determine if
beginning instrumental students who received musical discrimination training along with
incorporating models would demonstrate higher levels of discrimination skill than those students
who do not receive the treatment. Subjects were 43 fifth-grade wind and percussion students who
chose to participate in an instrumental music program. After 1 month of homogenous classes, the
students were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. This study followed a
pretest-posttest control group design. The Test of Musical Discrimination (TMD) is a tape-
recorded achievement test designed for this study. The purpose of the TMD is to measure the
46
beginning instrumentalist’s skill in discriminating differences in tonality, melodic patterns,
musical phrasing, tone quality, expressive nuance, intonation, number of musical parts in an
ensemble, and balance of musical parts in an ensemble. There was an additional posttest measure
that was designed by the investigator labeled the IPAT (Instrumental Performance Achievement
Test). The treatment period lasted for 18 weeks. During this time the experimental and control
groups met separately two times a week for 40 minutes each time. The experimental and control
groups received the same amount of instructional time, excluding the Exercises in Musical
Discrimination (EMD). Because both groups received the same amount of instructional time, the
time spent on the EMD by the experimental group reduced the amount of instructional time spent
on other instructional activities. The EMD exercises lasted approximately 7 to 9 minutes per
each class period. After the experimental period, the TMD was given again along with the IPAT.
The results suggest that beginning instrumental music students can develop discrimination skills
with systematic training procedures that use models and discriminator foils along with modeling
and imitation. These studies show the use of modeling, although sometimes not statistically
significant, to be an effective method of delivering information to students.
This section surveys effective means of transferring information to beginning, or early,
level music students. Research indicates expert teachers are clear and concise when delivering
information, students are actively kept on task, and if a problem arises it is dealt with
immediately (Worthy & Thompson, 2009). Teachers were also observed using the Suzuki
method, or teaching by rote, which achieved favorable results (Davidson, 1989; Schleuter, 1974).
Transferring knowledge to students through the use of modeling, albeit not always statistically
significant (Delzell, 1989; Haston, 2010; & Linklater, 1997), was preferred or achieved the
47
desired results (Dickey, 1991, 1992; Montemayor et al, 2004; & Rosenthal et al, 1988)
Intonation/Tone Quality
This section pertains to intonation as well as tone quality due to the purpose of this
present study. This study is being performed to determine if there is an effect, primarily, on a
student’s intonation and, secondarily, on a student’s tone quality. In 2006, Persellin performed a
study on the pitch accuracy of young children. The study was designed to determine if teaching
models, musical aptitude, and home environment has an effect on the pitch accuracy of young
children. One hundred thirty-four kindergarten students from south Texas were taught two times
a week for eight months using three different methods. The three methods were (a) the teacher
sang for, but never with, the subjects; (b) the teacher always sang with, but never for, the
children; and (c) the teacher sang for and with the subjects. Subjects were pre- and posttested.
Also, parents/caregivers were asked to complete a Home Musical Environment Scale (HOMES).
A taped test was administered to each subject individually in a quiet room. Subjects were asked
to echo eight three-note phrases of a complete “test song.” The “test song” was developed by
Rutkowski (2003) and was originally designed to evaluate children’s vocal development as they
mature. The testing instrument in this evaluation was designed to focus on vocal pitch accuracy
rather than vocal development. The results indicated all three treatments showed improvement
although there was no significant difference among the groups. A significant positive
relationship was found between the HOMES and vocal accuracy improvement.
Similarly, Millsap (1999) performed an experiment on the daily implementation of
sequential sustained tone exercises as a means of improving the ensemble intonation and tone
48
quality of second-year middle school bands. She stated that since the inception of bands in the
public schools in the United States, intonation and tone quality have been of primary concern to
instrumental educators. She went on to say that the music educator should strive to refine
individual tone quality as well as ensemble tone quality to achieve high caliber performances.
Millsap quoted Schleuter (1984) saying, “The most important instrumental skill to be developed
is a pleasing tone quality. Other instrumental skills…are not productive if a solid basis for tone
production and quality is not established first” (p. 84). She then went on to quote Colwell (1992)
in regards to individual tone quality stating: “Long tones are essential. They provide a daily test
of steady breath support, aid endurance, and offer a way to listen for and improve tone quality
and intonation. Students should strive for a well-focused, centered sound and accurate intonation.
The student should also use long tones to improve concentration and listening ability.” The
subjects in Millsap’s experiment were 114 seventh-grade band students completing the second
year of instrumental instruction. Subjects were divided into two classes. One class received a
daily warm-up procedure for treatment while the other class maintained normal activities, with
no treatment implemented. The results indicated a significant improvement in the experimental
group’s ensemble intonation, ensemble tone quality, and individual tone quality of the student.
There was no significant difference in embouchure formation, individual breath control, and
individual pitch discrimination.
An important time during a rehearsal to devote toward developing a student’s pitch
accuracy and tone quality, as well as other areas, is during a warm-up session. Designing a
specified warm-up procedure is important to the development of a brass student (Millsap, 1999).
Millsap quoted Colwell (1992) stating, “The purpose [of the warm-up procedure] is to learn the
49
basics of ensemble playing; it is an extension of the individual warm-ups (to warm up the
instruments, embouchure, fingers, tongue, and brain)” (p. 92). She goes on to say the use of
sustained tone exercises are designed to allow the students adequate time to listen to themselves
individually as well as listen to their sound in relation to the ensemble. The importance of a
mouthpiece buzzing warm-up routine for brass instrumentalists is based on the recommendations
of the leading authorities of brass playing. Even though there is not empirical data to support the
benefits of buzzing on the mouthpiece, brass experts believe in its relevance enough to include a
section, or a chapter, in their respective brass pedagogy books. Many authors have commented
on the importance of proper embouchure formation for students to achieve success but few have
proposed methods to teach a proper mouthpiece buzzing exercise for beginning brass students.
Establishing a functional embouchure may be one of the most important aspects of the teaching
sequence. The ability to perform a proper buzz to produce a desired tone is necessary in
producing a characteristic sound and establishing a solid foundation to build upon. Also since
research has shown modeling to be an effective form of transferring information to students, it
will be the method used in this study.
In summary, a review of literature showed (a) what an embouchure is and its proper
formation as well as common embouchure problems that may hinder student progress; (b)
correct placement of the mouthpiece; (c) attacks and tonguing, otherwise known as articulation;
(d) making a sound, or buzzing, on the mouthpiece; (e) modeling behavior; (f) beginning
instrumental/band instruction and how modeling is an effective way to transfer information to
students; and (g) intonation and tone quality.
The purpose of this study is to determine if incorporating a daily mouthpiece buzzing
50
regiment, as modeled by the teacher, has an effect on the performance of a beginning band brass
student. Specifically, does an author composed mouthpiece buzzing routine modeled by the
teacher have an effect on beginning band brass students’ intonation and tone quality? The
exercise was developed to establish and strengthen a good fundamental foundation for beginning
brass students. It is also used to prepare the student’s embouchure for upcoming elements in the
student’s method book as they encounter new pitches. When the students approach a higher pitch
in their method book they will be better prepared physically to play the pitch.
51
CHAPTER III
METHOD
The present study looks at the effect of incorporating a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine
on beginning brass instrumental students’ intonation and tone quality. To avoid splitting a single
beginning band class into control and experimental groups, the researcher decided to locate a
large enough instrumental program where there were multiple beginning band classes. The
location for this study was chosen by recommendations of the faculty from a local university in
the South because of school size, band size, and band program success. The majority of the
schools in the region are smaller and typically have only one beginning band class. The school
for this study has five beginning band classes that are homogeneous instrument settings allowing
for separate brass class periods to serve as experimental and control groups.
At the time of the research, the school has an enrollment of approximately 515 sixth-
grade students. Of these students, 31% were identified as gifted and 69% as traditional or low
achieving (including self contained students). 66% of the students qualified for free or reduced
lunch. Racial breakdown of the school is 53% Black, 37% White, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Asian.
The demographics of the school were reflected in the band program.
The subjects are 6th grade beginning band brass students from a large band program in the
northeast region of Mississippi. There were 56 students at the beginning of the semester. Due to
52
absences or students moving out of the school district, 45 students were tested. Two students’
posttest scores were omitted due to attendance under eighty percent during the treatment period
resulting in 43 subjects for the study. The students are distributed across instruments as follows:
trumpet (n = 14), horn (n = 6), trombone (n = 15), and baritone/euphonium (n = 8). These
beginning brass students had the same instructor to strengthen control for extraneous variables
and to bolster the reliability of the experiment. The music teacher participant (the student
participants’ regular music teacher) is a woman whose primary instrument is trumpet with two
years of previous teaching experience.
IRB certification for this study, “The Effect of an Author Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing
Routine Modeled by the Teacher on Beginning Band Brass Students” (Protocol #17x-073) was
requested and approved as Exempt under 45 CFR 46.101(b)(#1). A copy of parental consent
forms, child assent forms, as well as documentation of the school principal’s approval of this
study can be found in Appendix F.
Following Sehmann’s (2000) study, the researcher set a minimum attendance level of
eighty percent (40 class meetings) during the 10-week instructional period. Subjects were
enrolled in beginning band class with no previous brass instrument experience. Both
experimental and control groups participated in homogenous, like instrument classes (trumpet,
trombone, horn, baritone/euphonium). The control group proceeded with normal classroom
activities under the direction of their regular instructor. Treatment for the experimental group
was a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine designed by the investigator at the beginning of each
class meeting (see Appendix A). The mouthpiece buzzing segment took place during the
regularly scheduled band period so as not to disrupt the normal school schedule.
53
There were five beginning brass classes with approximately ten students per class. The
classes were assigned as either the experimental group (mouthpiece buzzing exercise) or the
control group. Classroom enrollment was compared to make experimental and control groups as
even as possible. After the comparison, class periods 3 and 4 were assigned as the control group
and class periods 2, 5, and 6 were assigned as the experimental group as designated by the
researcher. There were days where class periods 2 and 3 have percussionist students included in
the instructional time. Because of this, these class periods may be compared to each other as well
as compared to periods 4, 5, and 6 to determine if the inclusion of percussionists has any effect
on the results. This study is a posttest only design. There was no pretest due to the subjects’ lack
of development. Since this is a posttest only design, all of the subjects were tested at the
conclusion of the 10-week period.
The beginning band classes met five times per week for 57 minutes per class meeting.
Prior to the inclusion of the treatment for this study, mouthpiece buzzing was used sporadically
to demonstrate sound production for brass students as well as allow the students to produce a
“buzz” on his or her own. Subjects in the experimental group performed a short mouthpiece
buzzing routine everyday they met for band class. This daily mouthpiece buzzing routine was
administered at the beginning of the class period by their regular instructor (Millsap, 1999). The
control group received no special treatment and proceeded as normal.
Since the subjects were beginning instrumentalists and had to learn new notes, the study
corresponded to the approximate time of the school year the students learn all of the pitches
presented in the posttest. Concert C (horn equivalent, D) was the last pitch of the learning
succession in the students’ beginning band method book that was included in the posttest. The
54
beginning band method book the subjects use is Tradition of Excellence (2010), written by Bruce
Pearson and Ryan Nowlin, where the concert C is introduced on p.30. The instructor anticipated
that the subjects would progress to the concert C by the beginning of the spring semester. To
allow enough instructional treatment time, the study began in October.
Instructional Procedures
The mouthpiece buzzing routine was designed to address certain brass fundamentals and
strengthen the embouchure to prepare subjects for upcoming challenges (Morrison, 2002). See
Appendix A for mouthpiece buzzing routine. Areas addressed in the exercise are: tonguing,
higher register, lower register, and long tones. The researcher conducted a training session with
the instrumental instructor of the experimental and control groups. The training session was
designed to make the instruction as clear as possible. The researcher explained the goals and
theories behind the development of the mouthpiece buzzing exercise, proper execution of the
exercise, and procedures that would follow at the end of the treatment period for data collection.
The researcher then demonstrated the procedure to the instructor in its entirety to give a proper
model of the exercise that was to be replicated in the classroom. The instructor then
demonstrated the entire mouthpiece buzzing exercise to the researcher. As a reference, in case
the instructor should forget some of the daily routine, the instructor was provided information
explaining the routine in its entirety as well as instructions explaining how to deliver the
information to the subjects (see Appendix A). Also, the instructor was told to use tone
descriptors referenced by Cavitt (1996) when addressing subjects’ tone quality. The instructor
kept daily records to ensure that the experimental group executed the buzzing routine during the
55
first few minutes of each class meeting for the 10-week treatment period. The researcher
periodically observed the teacher performing the buzzing routine to ensure the routine was being
executed properly. The researcher also observed an occasional control group to ensure no
mouthpiece buzzing was taking place.
The mouthpiece buzzing exercise (see Appendix A) was designed to be executed in a
teacher model “call and response” format (Robinson, 1996) with a tempo of a quarter note
equaling one hundred beats per minute. The teacher began by tapping his or her foot and would
say, “Repeat after me.” The teacher would give no verbal commands during the exercise. He or
she buzzed a specific passage on his or her mouthpiece and the students repeated what the
teacher has just modeled. The mouthpiece the instructor used was a Bach 3C trumpet
mouthpiece.
The beginning of the exercise was designed to take a deep breath and channel the air
stream through the aperture. As the air passes through the air stream the students tongued as if
they were playing notes. The mouthpiece was then placed on the students’ embouchures
performing the same exercise. The subjects would then add the buzz to the exercise by measure
4. The pitch being buzzed should be a mid-range/comfortable pitch that feels relatively “normal”
for the subjects. In measures 5-7 the rhythm is a whole note, then two half notes, followed by
four quarter notes. It is followed by the identical rhythm being buzzed at a higher pitch (mm. 8-
10) then a lower pitch (mm. 11-13) than the initial pitch. Measure 14 is a glissando beginning by
buzzing a low pitch and continuously buzzing upward to a higher pitch, while measure 15 is a
glissando in the opposite direction. The subjects then began by buzzing a higher pitch and
continuing the buzz downward. The duration of each glissando is four counts. This was
56
immediately followed by a measure (m. 17) containing four quarter notes. The first two quarter
notes should be at a lower pitch followed by two quarter notes at a higher pitch. Measure 18 is
similar to 17 but reverses the pitch order. The first two quarter notes are a higher pitch
immediately followed by two quarter notes at a lower pitch. Measures 19-22 are glissandi as well
that progressively get higher in pitch with each following measure. Measures 23-26 are similar to
the previous four measures but these measures progressively get lower in pitch.
Data Collection
This study utilizes a posttest only design. No pretest was administered due to the
subjects’ lack of development. At the conclusion of the 10-week investigation period, both
groups (experimental and control) were given a posttest (see Appendix B) to compare the
effectiveness of the treatment on the subjects’ intonation and tone quality (Millsap, 1999). The
posttest was administered during regularly scheduled band classes. As suggested by Persellin
(2006) subjects individually entered a quiet room where the posttest was administered by the
researcher. Each individual posttest was recorded for analysis. Subjects performed an excerpt
developed by the researcher (Appendix B). The excerpt was at a slightly easier level than the
subjects’ playing ability at the time of the posttest. The posttest consisted of notes with mixed
intervals in ascending and descending patterns.
At the beginning of the testing period, the researcher tuned the trumpet, trombone, and
baritone/euphonium students to a concert F (G for trumpet). The horn students were tuned to his
or her equivalent pitch, G (concert C). For horn in F, a G is a comfortable, mid-ranged, open note
on the instrument easily accessible for beginning students. To ensure the subjects understand and
57
play the correct notes, the subjects were asked to identify the correct name and fingering/slide
position for each note in the excerpt (South, 2013). Subjects were then given 30 seconds to
familiarize themselves with the musical excerpt (South, 2013). At the conclusion of the 30
seconds, the participants played the sequence one time on their instrument to ensure the subject
understood the musical excerpt (South, 2013). If there were any misunderstanding, or corrections
needed, they were addressed during this time. Then the recording process began and the subjects
performed the excerpt a second time. This was the performance analyzed for the study.
The audio recording process utilized the Tonal Energy (tonalenergy.com) app on an iPad
and was recorded through a Blue Mikey external microphone. The Tonal Energy app was co-
founded by the music app developing company, Sonosaurus LLC, and Philip Geiger (2016) and
designed to compliment music education (Retrieved from tonalenergy.com). Each student was
recorded on an individual track and coded based on instrument and subject number (South,
2013). The onscreen visualization of the signal allowed the researcher to observe that recording
was taking place and that the signal was sufficient, neither too loud nor too soft, to ensure a
quality recording.
To assess intonation, the researcher analyzed the sustained portion of selected pitches
from the student’s audio recording using the computer software program Praat (Boersma &
Weenink, 2013). Praat is used to analyze sound parameters as well as analyze frequency
(Boersma, 1993; Hopkins, 2015). Each measure of the posttest (see Appendix B) consists of two
pitches. Each measure begins with a concert F followed by another pitch. The second pitch of
every measure was the pitch selected for analysis. The audio files were exported from the iPad
and imported into Praat. Once imported, a frequency analysis of the sustained portion was
58
measured, in hertz, to determine the fundamental frequency of the actual pitch being played.
Following the Hopkins (2015) study, a research assistant independently analyzed the audio files.
The researcher’s and researcher assistant’s fundamental frequencies were compared for
reliability. The correlation was .97 (agreements/agreements plus disagreements). The
fundamental frequency measurements were averaged, then converted into cent deviation.
To assess tone quality, experienced adjudicators that have experience working with
beginning brass students, analyzed each subject’s complete recording. The researcher and his
advising committee chose adjudicators. The researcher randomized the order of recordings the
adjudicators listened to. Each adjudicator listened to the recordings on a CD using a Sony CD
Walkman D-EJ011 with Bose QuietComfort 15 Acoustic Noise Canceling Headphones
(provided by researcher) and rated each subject’s tone quality on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Prior to listening to the subjects’ recordings, the adjudicators attended a training session to
practice using the 5-point Likert-type scale (Millsap, 1999; Sehmann, 2000).
Field Notes
Field notes were taken by the researcher regarding general impressions of the
experimental procedure. For fidelity of implementation, the researcher randomly observed the
instructor giving the treatment to the experimental group as well as observing no treatment being
given to the control group. Notes were made on teacher instruction completion as well as the
subjects’ response and progress. Also, the instructor made observations and general thoughts
about the study.
59
Null Hypotheses
1. There will be no statistically significant difference in the posttest scores for intonation
between the experimental group and the control group.
2. The will be no statistically significant difference in the posttest scores in tone quality
between the experimental group and the control group.
60
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The central questions asked in this study were: 1) does the daily implementation of a
mouthpiece buzzing routine have an effect on the intonation of beginning band brass students;
and 2) does the daily implementation of mouthpiece buzzing routine have an effect on the tone
quality of beginning band brass students?
The present study is an investigation of the effects of an author-composed mouthpiece
buzzing routine modeled by the teacher on beginning band brass students’ intonation and tone
quality. The experimental group (n = 27) utilized a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine modeled by
the instructor at the beginning of each class period. The control group (n = 16) received no
supplemental treatment and proceeded through normal classroom activities. The duration of the
instructional period was ten weeks. This study utilizes a posttest only design. The posttest
consisted of eight notes embedded within mixed intervals in ascending and descending patterns.
Subjects were recorded performing the excerpt and the audio recordings were analyzed to
determine if there was a significant difference in intonation and tone quality.
61
Field Notes
The researcher recorded field notes during seven classroom observations to determine
that the teacher and student participants were executing the prescribed procedure. Notes were
made on instructional delivery as well as the students’ responses and progress.
Visit One
This observation was after approximately one week of treatment. The instructor executed
buzzing routine properly. Subjects weren’t necessarily matching pitch but were attempting to
imitate what the instructor was buzzing.
Visit Two
This observation was after approximately two weeks of treatment. The instructor executed
buzzing routine properly. The students were responding well to the instructor. The students were
beginning to buzz closer to the pitches being modeled. They were also able to sustain the pitches
for a longer duration.
Visit Three
During week three, the normal classroom procedures were somewhat disrupted due to an
upcoming performance. Woodwind and brass students, as well as their equipment (chairs and
stands), were combined in a single rehearsal space. To accommodate the experimental condition
the teacher took the brass players to a room where they executed the buzzing routine. The
disruption of typical daily activities seemed to affect the students somewhat; some were
distracted and off task, some had difficulty performing without a chair. Once finished, the
instructor and subjects returned to the full band rehearsal. The instructor executed the buzzing
62
routine properly. The subjects are showing progress. Pitches were more sustained than previous
observations. Also, occasional subjects were imitating the instructor’s pitch more closely.
Visit Four
This observation was after approximately four weeks of treatment. Similarly to the previous
observation, the subjects were preparing for their upcoming concert. Again, the subjects were
removed from the rehearsal to execute the buzzing routine. The instructor executed the buzzing
routine properly. Subjects are showing progress. Students are using more air while buzzing and
sustaining tone for longer durations. Also, more students are matching the pitches being modeled
by the instructor.
Visit Five
This observation was after approximately five weeks of treatment. This was the last week before
the subjects observed the Christmas holiday as well as New Year’s Day. The subjects were
involved with state-testing. Band rehearsal did not take place.
Visit Six
This observation was one week after the subjects returned from the Christmas holiday as well as
New Year’s Day, after approximately seven weeks of treatment. The instructor executed the
buzzing routine properly. Subjects seem to be progressing well. The majority of the students are
imitating the buzzing routine entirely. Subjects are using air to support tone quality and sustain
modeled pitches.
63
Visit Seven
This observation was after approximately nine weeks of treatment. The instructor executed the
buzzing routine properly. Subjects seem to be progressing well. Audibly observable wider pitch
range among subjects as well sustained pitches.
The instructor also made observations and general thoughts about the study. The
instructor indicated that the treatment groups seemed to have a more mature tone quality and
tend to use their air more effectively. The treatment group also seemed to play more stylistically
appropriately, especially in regards to legato playing. The differences were evident to the
instructor as the study progressed.
Intonation
The first null hypothesis stated: There will be no statistically significant difference in the
posttest scores for intonation between the experimental group and the control group. To assess
intonation, the researcher and the researcher’s assistant analyzed the sustained portion of the
eight predetermined pitches from each subject’s audio recording to determine the fundamental
frequency of the target pitches (see Appendix H). Once the fundamental frequencies were
determined, they were converted into cent deviation (see Appendix I). The cent deviations were
averaged to determine the mean deviation for each pitch. Data was then transposed for purposes
of calculating results.
The data for the subjects was inputted into SPSS for analysis. A Levene’s test was
performed to determine the homogeneity of variances. An independent-samples t-test was
conducted to compare the means to determine if the author-composed mouthpiece buzzing
routine has an effect on beginning band brass students’ intonation compared to a control group.
64
Each pitch was analyzed separately. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the
posttest scores for each group.
Table 1
Intonation Mean and Standard Deviation
Treatment Group (n = 27) Control Group (n = 16)
Pitch M SD M SD
G/D -46.64 196.74 6.42 29.14
A/E -114.28 244.67 -103.30 173.18
Bb/F (high) -94.75 209.88 -128.26 228.46
C/G (high) -184.02 281.02 -221.87 317.77
Eb/Bb -6.25 39.15 66.64 157.74
D/A 18.94 93.24 27.68 101.09
C/G (low) 66.48 132.53 63.80 106.43
Bb/F (low) 52.43 150.65 128.74 242.03
Note. Pitches are in order of posttest. The second pitch is the sounding concert pitch for F Horn.
This portion pertains to the target pitches in ascending intervals of the posttest. The mean
for the pitch G (horn equivalent D) was 46.64 cents flat for the treatment group while the control
group was 6.42 cents sharp. Even though the control group was more accurate, there was no
statistically significant difference in the scores for the treatment (M=-46.64, SD=196.74) and
control (M=6.42, SD=29.14) conditions; t (41) = -1.067, p = .292. The mean for the pitch A
65
(horn equivalent E) was 114.28 cents flat for the treatment group and was 103.30 cents flat for
the control group. Both groups were below the pitch approximately the same distance resulting
in no statistically significant difference in the scores for treatment (M=-114.28, SD=244.67) and
control (M=-103.30, SD=173.18) conditions; t (41) = -0.157, p = .876. The mean for the upper B-
flat pitch (horn equivalent F) was 94.75 cents flat for the treatment group and 128.26 cents flat
for the control group. Even though there was a 33.51 cent deviation in favor of the treatment
group, the results were not statistically significant in the scores for the treatment (M=-94.75,
SD=209.88) and control (M=-128.26, SD=228.46) conditions; t (41) = 0.490, p = .627. The mean
for the upper C (horn equivalent G) was 184.02 cents flat for the treatment group and 221.87
cents flat for the control group. Similar to the previous pitch, there was a divergence in cent
deviation in favor of the treatment group, but yielded no statistically significant difference in the
scores for the treatment (M=-184.02, SD=281.02) and control (M=-221.87, SD=317.77)
conditions; t (41) = 0.407, p = .686.
This portion pertains to the target pitches in descending intervals of the posttest. The
mean for the pitch E-flat (horn equivalent B-flat) was 6.25 cents flat for the treatment group
while the control group was 66.64 cents sharp. Albeit not statistically significant, the pitch was
more accurate in the scores for the treatment (M=-6.25, SD=39.15) than the control (M=64.64,
SD=157.74) conditions; t (41) = -2.302, p = .088. The mean for the pitch D (horn equivalent A)
was sharp for both groups. The treatment group was 18.94 cents sharp while the control group
was 27.68 cents sharp. Both groups were above the pitch approximately the same distance
resulting in no statistically significant difference in the scores for treatment (M=18.94,
SD=93.24) and control (M=27.68, SD=101.09) conditions; t (41) = -0.288, p = .775. The next
66
pitch was lower C (horn equivalent G). The treatment group was 66.48 cents sharp and the
control group was 63.80 sharp. Again, since both groups were approximately the same distance
sharp the results indicated no statistically significant difference in the scores for the treatment
(M=66.48, SD=132.53) and control (M=63.80, SD=106.43) conditions; t (41) = 0.069, p = .945.
Lastly, the mean for the lower B-flat (horn equivalent F) was 52.43 cents sharp for the treatment
group and 128.74 cents sharp for the control group. Even though the treatment group was 76.31
cents more accurate than the control group, there was no statistically significant difference in the
scores for the treatment (M=52.43, SD=150.65) and control (M=128.74, SD=242.03) conditions;
t (41) = -1.278, p = .268. These results suggest that the inclusion of a daily mouthpiece buzzing
routine has a very limited effect on beginning band brass students’ intonation. Crosstabulations
were performed and determined that the sample size wasn’t sufficient enough to analyze separate
instrumentation.
67
Figure 1 Results of Mean Difference in Cent Deviation of Intonation
Figure 1. Intonation for each performed note for both treatment and control groups. The notes are in order of the posttest. Bars represent the mean degrees sharp or flat per pitch. Zero represents perfectly in tune pitch.
Tone Quality
The second null hypothesis stated: There will be no statistically significant difference in
the posttest scores in tone quality between the experimental group and the control group. To
assess tone quality, each subject’s recording was analyzed by adjudicators that have experience
working with beginning brass students. The recordings of the subjects were placed on a CD in a
random order. The adjudicators listened to the CD and rated each subject’s tone quality on a 5-
point Likert-type scale. A score of one denoted the lowest possible rating and a score of five
denoted the highest possible rating. Cohen’s κ was selected to determine the interrater reliability
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
G A Bb(high)
C(high) Eb D C(low) Bb(low) TreatmentGroup
ControlGroup
68
between the two adjudicators’ tone quality evaluations of eight tones for each of the 43 student
participants. There was slight agreement between the adjudicators’ ratings, κ = .147. In regards
to the 5-point Likert-type scale, the number given to each subject is the sum of the adjudicator’s
ratings (see Appendix J). Thus, a total score of two denoted the lowest possible rating and a total
score of ten denoted the highest possible rating. It was determined to use a t-test to compare the
means of the two groups to determine if they are statistically different from each other. The data
for the 43 student participants was inputted into SPSS for analysis.
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the posttest scores for each group for
tone quality. The difference in mean rating for the treatment group is 0.55 higher than the mean
rating for the control group.
Table 2
Tone Quality Mean and Standard Deviation
Group n M SD
Treatment 27 5.93 1.33
Control 16 5.38 2.00
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to determine if the inclusion of an author-
composed mouthpiece buzzing routine had an effect on beginning band brass students’ tone
quality. When comparing the difference in mean scores, there was no statistically significant
difference in the scores for treatment (M=5.93, SD=1.33) and control (M=5.38, SD=2.00)
69
conditions; t (41) = 1.09, p = 0.336. These results suggest the inclusion of a daily mouthpiece
buzzing routine does not have an effect on beginning band brass students’ tone quality.
Crosstabulations were performed and determined that the sample size wasn’t sufficient enough to
analyze separate instrumentation.
70
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Instrumental music has become an essential part of the public school curriculum in the
United States. In some situations, it is the primary medium for music education in schools. So, it
is imperative that students develop strong performance fundamentals in order to optimize their
potential as performers. It is the responsibility of the instrumental educator to develop and utilize
the most beneficial teaching techniques and to have a concept of what is ideal for beginning
young instrumentalists. For brass students, forming a proper embouchure is paramount. The
educator must also anticipate and predict common problems in hopes to avoid them, allowing the
students to achieve optimal results (Millican, 2013). Finally, it is the responsibility of the
educator to make conscious decisions about prioritizing, as well as sequencing, the instructional
material (Millican, 2013).
The means of instructional delivery is also of importance. As studied by Dickey (1992),
verbal instruction, albeit necessary, can be misinterpreted. Nonverbal instruction, such as
modeling, is an effective way of communicating information in the classroom (Fredrickson,
2005). Other studies have shown modeling to be a highly effective form of instruction (Taylor,
2006); Woody, 1999, 2003) and tend to be superior to cases with no-model (Henley, 2001), but
not in all cases (Montemayor, Wiltshire, & Morrison, 2004). MacLeod (2010) furthered the
71
discussion by stating the instructors must be able to model the desired behavior incorrectly as
well as correctly.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of the inclusion of a daily
mouthpiece buzzing routine for brass instrumentalists, as modeled by the teacher, during their
first year of instruction. The mouthpiece buzzing routine was designed to address certain brass
fundamentals and strengthen the embouchure to prepare the students for upcoming challenges
they may encounter. Does this daily mouthpiece buzzing routine have an effect on the intonation
and tone quality of beginning band brass students? After a review of literature, teacher modeling
was chosen as the preferred means of delivering this information to students.
Forty-three beginning band brass students participated in either an experimental or a
control group. The experimental group performed a mouthpiece buzzing routine, designed by the
researcher, at the beginning of each class meeting. Their normal music teacher taught the
buzzing routine to the students and led them through the routine each day. While the routine was
in progress, the instructor referenced tone quality using the tone descriptors identified by Cavitt
(1996). The duration of the study was ten weeks. At the conclusion of the treatment period, the
subjects were individually recorded performing the posttest. Each recording was analyzed for
intonation and tone quality. The researcher and an assistant measured the fundamental frequency
of the selected pitches and converted the fundamental frequencies to cent deviation. An
independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the means to determine if there was an
effect on the subjects’ intonation. Adjudicators with beginning band experience rated the
subjects’ tone quality. The adjudicators listened to a recording of each subject and rated his or
her overall tone quality on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
72
The results indicate the daily implementation of a mouthpiece buzzing does not have a
statistically significant effect on beginning brass students’ intonation or tone quality. Although
not statistically significant, the measures lean toward positive embouchure development and tone
quality. A Levene’s test was performed to determine the homogeneity of variances. Some of the
t-tests may have been insignificant due to the wide ranges of variance in the two sets of scores. It
is worth mentioning and considering that pitch changes greater than five to six cents would be
noticeable (Loeffler, 2006), while remaining statistically insignificant.
The middle range pitches, which are more comfortable to produce than the upper and
lower range pitches, were fairly consistent between both groups. The first pitch, concert G (horn
equivalent D) resulted with the mean of the treatment group 46.64 cents flat while the mean for
the control group was only 6.42 cents sharp. There was a 53.06 cent deviation resulting in a
perceivable audible difference between groups. The control group was more accurate for this
pitch as well as the next pitch, concert A (horn equivalent E). In this instance both groups were
flat by approximately the same distance. The mean for the control group was 103.30 cents flat
while the mean for the treatment group was 114.28. For this pitch, there was a 10.98 cent
deviation between groups. The distance in cent deviation between treatment group and control
group are audibly closer to each other than the previous pitch. The results indicated no
statistically significant difference for the pitch G and A. This determines the mouthpiece buzzing
routine does not have a sizeable effect on either of these pitches. Since there was a large
difference in cent deviation for concert G, the control group was audibly closer to the target than
the treatment group.
73
The next two pitches in the experiment, albeit not statistically significant, have an
interesting outcome for embouchure development. The purpose of a daily mouthpiece buzzing
routine is to prepare a student’s embouchure for foreseeable challenges for brass players.
Developing range, both higher and lower, can be challenging for brass musicians, especially
young, developing students. The subjects in this study had only been playing their instruments
for a few months at the time of the posttest. The two highest pitches in the study were a high
concert B-flat (horn equivalent F) and high concert C (horn equivalent G). The subjects were
introduced to high C approximately one week prior to the posttest. As stated in the previous
chapter, the results were not statistically significant between groups. Also, both treatment and
control groups’ means were substantially flat for both high B-flat and high C, but the treatment
group was closer to “in tune” than the control group. The treatment group was 33.51 cents closer
to the high B-flat and 37.85 cents closer to the high C than the control group. The mean for the
high B-flat for the treatment group was 94.75 cents flat while the mean for the control group was
128.26 cents flat. For high B-flat, there was a 33.51 cent difference between groups. This is not
statistically significant but audibly closer for the treatment group. Similarly, the high C was also
audibly closer for the treatment group. The treatment group was 37.85 cents more accurate than
the control group. These findings suggest that the treatment group embouchures may have been
developing to play pitches in their higher register more accurately.
The next pitch in the posttest sequence, E-flat (horn equivalent B-flat), is also a middle
range pitch. The control group was 66.64 cents sharp while the treatment group was only 6.25
cents flat. Even though there was a 72.89 cent differential between groups, the results were not
statistically significant. The cent differential would also yield a noticeable audible difference.
74
The results may be insignificant due to the wide range in variance in the scores. At first the data
for this middle range pitch didn’t seem important but if one looks at the previous pitches of the
posttest, there is a possible explanation for the difference in the accuracy for this particular pitch.
The subjects were playing at the top of their ranges, high B-flat and high C, prior to this pitch.
Perhaps the treatment groups’ embouchures were more prepared for the intervallic distance and
were able to adjust more accurately than the control group, suggesting that the treatments
groups’ embouchures may be more developed than the control group when encountering larger
intervals.
The next two sequential pitches in the posttest, which are also middle range notes, were
concert D (horn equivalent A) and low concert C (horn equivalent G). The mean for the pitch D
was sharp for both groups. Both treatment and control groups were above the pitch
approximately the same distance. The treatment group was 18.94 cents sharp and the control
group was 27.68 cents sharp. The next pitch, low concert C, was even closer between groups.
The treatment group was 66.48 cents sharp and the control group was 63.80 sharp. There is only
2.68 cents difference between groups. The results indicated no statistically significant difference
in the means between both groups for either concert D or low concert C. Because of the
closeness in means, there is a limited perceived audible difference between groups.
The last pitch of the posttest was lower concert B-flat (horn equivalent F). Similar to the
higher concert B-flat and higher concert C, because of a beginning brass students’ range, the
lower concert B-flat can be challenging due to the embouchure development of the students. At
the time of the posttest, the lowest pitch the subjects were introduced to was the lower B-flat.
The mean for the treatment group was 52.43 cents sharp and 128.74 cents sharp for the control
75
group. Albeit not a statistically significant difference between the means for both groups, the
treatment group was 76.31 cents closer to the target pitch than the control group, which,
perceptually, is a large audible difference. Similar to the results for the pitch E-flat, the data may
not be statistically significant due to the wide range in variance. The treatment group was able to
achieve a lower fundamental frequency mean, suggesting that the treatment groups’ embouchure
may have been more developed, or prepared, to play pitches in their lower registers. Considering
the differences in the low B flat and the higher B flat and C may imply that the subjects in the
treatment group have developed an overall larger pitch range on their instruments. Lastly in
regards to intonation, and because of variance among the two groups’ scores, the results of the
study yielded an inconsistent effect. However, in five of the eight comparisons there is an
audible difference in mean pitch cent deviations between the two groups.
After analyzing treatment and control groups in their totality, individual subject data was
reviewed. Each subject’s individual mean and range were determined (See the results in Table 8
in Appendix I). Subjects individual intonation mean was determined by averaging the cent
deviation for all of the pitches performed by each subject. Range was determined by calculating
the cent deviation between the sharpest pitch and flattest pitch. A narrow range of cent deviation
meant the student performed all the notes of the posttest with more consistency. A mean score
close to zero meant the student was more accurate playing all of the target pitches.
Range was observed first. Some of the ranges were very quite large yielding
inconsistency in pitch. A student may have an accurate mean but his or her range score is large.
This results in an inconsistent performance among the pitches of the posttest. So, the researcher
looked for the subject’s scores with a range of less than one hundred and then observed those
76
students’ mean scores for pitch accuracy to observe overall consistency and accuracy. Fifty-six
percent of the subjects in the treatment group had a cent deviation range of less than one hundred
while the control group had thirty-one percent of their subjects with a cent deviation range of less
than one hundred. Of those students, the lowest mean for overall pitch accuracy was a cent
deviation of 4.35. This student was in the treatment group. The next three most accurate cent
deviation means were 5.28, 6.28, and -8.42. These students were also in the treatment group. The
next accurate cent deviation mean was 8.60. This was the most accurate among the students in
the control group with a range of less than one hundred. By observing the individual students’
cent deviation mean and pitch accuracy, there were more subjects from the treatment group with
a cent deviation range of less than one hundred and of those students, there were more subjects
closer to the target mean for pitch accuracy.
The implementation of a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine did not produce statistically
significant ratings of beginning band brass students’ tone quality. The instructor modeled the
desired characteristic tone quality throughout the duration of the study. The instructor also
described tone quality using tone descriptors identified by Cavitt (1996). Two experienced
adjudicators listened to recordings of the subjects and rated each of them on a 5 point Likert-type
scale. Cohen’s κ was selected to determine the interrater reliability between the two adjudicators’
tone quality evaluations of eight tones for each of the 43 student participants. There was slight
agreement between the adjudicators’ ratings, κ = .147. Even though there were a high number of
disagreements, the adjudicator’s ratings were usually within one point of each other. There were
only two instances where there was a two point difference between ratings. For more
consistency, the rubric may need to be reworded or more adjudicator training may be necessary.
77
The score recorded for each subject is the sum of the adjudicator’s ratings (see Appendix
J). Thus, a total score of two denoted the lowest possible rating and a total score of ten denoted
the highest possible rating. A t-test was performed to compare means between the treatment
group and the control group. When comparing the difference in mean scores, there was no
statistically significant difference in the scores for treatment (M=5.93, SD=1.33) and control
(M=5.38, SD=2.00) conditions. Albeit not statistically significant, the results of the means
indicate the treatment group was able to achieve higher ratings for tone quality. A longer
duration may yield more significant results for improving tone quality.
Implications
The results of this study do not support the premise that, as part of beginning band
instruction, a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine will significantly improve intonation and tone
quality. These findings do not support Millsap (1999) stating the importance of a specifically
designed warm-up procedure for the development of brass students. These findings do not
support brass pedagogues’ assertions about the importance of a mouthpiece buzzing warm-up
routine for developing brass instrumentalists (Fink, 1977; Roberts, 2002; Sanborn, 2004) or to
progress more quickly than if the student began directly on the instrument (Fallis, 2001). Also,
this study did not reinforce, nor hinder, the use of modeling as the format for transferring
information to the students. Perhaps the duration of the study was too short to measure a
difference that is significant though the study did measure slight improvements in accuracy for
higher and lower pitches of the students’ range as well as slight improvements in individual tone
quality. The process of playing a brass instrument with a characteristic tone quality, as well as
78
achieving pitch accuracy, is a developmental process. Teachers and researchers will continue to
search out methods for student improvement because good teachers realize the importance of
fundamentals and that students should establish a solid fundamental foundation (Unverricht,
2008) allowing the students to achieve optimal success (Britten, 2005).
Questions Recommended for Future Research
Although the results were not statistically significant in comparing means of beginning
band brass students’ intonation and tone quality when implementing a daily mouthpiece buzzing
routine, the means did show improvement for the treatment group. The following
recommendations and suggestions for future research can be derived from this study:
1. The length of this study could be extended for a longer duration to investigate the
possibility of greater improvement in beginning band brass students’ intonation.
2. The length of this study could be extended for a longer duration to investigate the
possibility of greater improvement in beginning band brass students’ tone quality.
3. A larger pool of subjects may yield different results.
4. This study could be conducted with more experienced students to determine if the
incorporation of a daily mouthpiece buzzing routine could achieve improvements with
older students.
5. An extension of this study could incorporate the use of a tuning device to achieve more
accurate pitches.
6. The use of a recorded model or synthesizer may achieve more accurate pitches as well as
improve tone quality.
79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J. N. (1981). Effects of tape-recorded aural models on sight-reading and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29:1, 23-30.
Bailey, W., Miles, P., Siebert, A., Stanley, W., & Stein, T. (2008). Teaching brass: A
resource manual. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Baker, D. S. (1980). The effect of appropriate and inappropriate in-class song
performance models on performance preference of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28:1, 3-17.
Baker, T. (1978). Schirmer pronouncing: Pocket manual of musical terms. New York,
NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Benson, W.L. (1989). The effect of models, self-observation, and evaluation on the
modification of specified teaching behaviors of applied music teacher. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 7:2, 28-31.
Boersma, P. (1993). Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the
harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound. IFA Proceedings, 17, 97-110. Boersma, P & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer
program]. Version 6.0.19. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/. Britten, R. V. (2005). Preservice and experienced teachers’ lesson plans for beginning
instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53:1, 26-39. Cavitt, M. E. (1996). Teachers’ and authors’ uses of language to describe brass tone
quality. Texas Music Education Research, 8, 13-19. Chappell, J. (2008). The buzz on horn buzzing. Teaching Music, 15:6, 50-51. Colwell, R. J. & Goolsby, T. (1992). The teaching of instrumental music. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Colprit, E. J. (2000). Observation and analysis of Suzuki string teaching. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 48, 206-221. Cooper, L. G. (2004). Teaching band & orchestra: Methods and materials. Chicago, IL:
GIA Publications, Inc.
81
Dammers, R. J. (2009). Utilizing internet-based videoconferencing for instrumental music lessons. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 28:1, 17-24.
Davidson, L. (1989). Observing a yang ch’in lesson: learning by modeling and metaphor.
Journal of Aesthetic Education 23:1, 85-99. Delzell, J. K. The effects of musical discrimination training in beginning instrumental
music classes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37:1, 85-99. Dickey, M. R. (1991). A comparison of verbal instruction and nonverbal teacher-student
modeling in instrumental ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39:2, 132-142.
Dickey, M. R. (1992). A review of research on modeling in music teaching and learning.
Psychology of Music, 20, 27-40. Droe, K. (2006). Music preference and music education: a review of literature. Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, 24:2, 23-32. Fallis, T. L. (2001). Teaching beginning trombone players. Teaching Music, 9:1, 36-39. Farkas, P. (1956). The art of French horn playing. Miami, FL: Summy-Birchard Inc. Farkas, P. (1962). The art of brass playing. Bloomington, IN: Wind Music Inc. Fink, R. H. (1977). The trombonist’s handbook: A complete guide to playing and
teaching the trombone. Athens, OH: Accura Music. Frederiksen, B. (2006). Arnold Jacobs: Song and wind. United States of America:
WindSong Press Limited. Fredrickson, W. E., & Hackworth, R. S. (2005). Analysis of first-year music teachers’
advice to music education students. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23:2, 4-11.
Frewen, K. G. (2010). Effects of familiarity with a melody prior to instruction on
children’s piano performance accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 320-333.
Geiger, P. (2016). Tonal energy [Mobile application]. Version 1.4.2. Retrieved from
tonalenergy.com.
82
Goolsby, T. W. (1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced, novice and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 286-303.
Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsal: a comparison of
three career levels and pre-service teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45:1, 21-40.
Grimland, F. (2005). Characteristics of teacher-directed modeling in high school choral
rehearsals. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24:1, 5-14. Hamann, D. L., Lineburgh, N. L., & Paul, S. (1998). Teaching effectiveness and social
skill development. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46:1, 87-101. Hamann, D. L., Baker, D. S., McAllister, P. A., & Bauer, W. I. (2000). Factors affecting
university music students’ perceptions of lesson quality and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48:2, 102-113.
Haston, W. (2010). Beginning wind instrument instruction: a comparison of aural and
visual approaches. Contributions to Music Education, 37:2, 9-28. Hellman, D. S. (2002). The effect of instructor’s major/instrument on student melodic
imitation scores and tone quality. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50:1, 51-62. Henley, P. T. (2001). Effects of modeling and tempo patterns as practice techniques on
the performance of high school instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 169-180.
Herriott, M. (2009). Brass: daily warm-up part 1. Canadian Musician, 31:6, 30. Hewitt, M. P. (2001). The effects of modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening on
junior high instrumentalists’ music performance and practiced attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 307-322.
Hewitt, M. P. (2002). Self-evaluation tendencies of junior high instrumentalists. Journal
of Research in Music Education, 50:3, 215-226. Hopkins, M. T. (2015). Eighth-grade violinists’ instrument tuning ability: a comparison
of pitch perception and tuning accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63, 349-368.
Hunt, N. J. (1971). Guide to teaching brass. Dubuque, IA: WM. C. Brown Company
Publishers.
83
Jones, D. A. (2012). Uses of spectrographic analyses to improve tone quality of middle school trumpet students. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 5:3, 241-256.
Jones, M. (1989). A study of vocal pitch-matching skills among undergraduate education
majors using classroom instruments. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 7:2, 39-41.
Kavanaugh, L. H. (1996). Babes in slideland. ITA Journal, 24, 38-45 Kleinhammer, E. (1963). The art of trombone playing. Secaucus, NJ: Summy-Birchard,
Inc. Levinowitz, L. M. (1989). An investigation of preschool children’s comparative
capability to sing songs with and without words. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 100, 14-19.
Loeffler, B. D. (2006). Instrument timbres and pitch estimation in polyphonic music
(unpublished master’s thesis). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA Linklater, F. (1997). Effects of audio- and videotape models on performance achievement
of beginning clarinetists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45:3, 402-414. MacLeod, R. (2010). A comparison of instructional strategies used by experienced band
and orchestra teachers when teaching a first-year class an unfamiliar music excerpt. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 185, 49-61.
Madsen, C. K. & Madsen Jr., C. H. (1998). Teaching/discipline: A positive approach for
educational development. Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing Company of Raleigh, Inc.
McAllister, L. S. (2008/2009). Evaluating teaching effectiveness in music. American
Music Teacher, 58:3, 14-17. Miller, M. S., & Rutkowski, J. (2003). The effect of teacher feedback and modeling on
first graders’ use of singing voice and developmental music aptitude. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 156, 1-10.
Millican, J. (2013). Describing instrumental music teachers’ thinking: implications for
understanding pedagogical content knowledge. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 31:2, 45-53.
84
Millsap, T. A. (1999). The daily implementation of sequential sustained tone exercises as a means of improving the ensemble intonation and tone quality of second-year middle school bands (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Montemayor, M., Wiltshire, E. S. & Morrison, S. J. (2004). The effect of a recorded
model on band students’ performance self-evaluations, achievement, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 116-129.
Montemayor, M. & Moss, E. A. (2009). Effects of recorded models on novice teachers’
rehearsal verbalizations, evaluations, and conducting. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 236-251.
Morrison, S. J. (2002). The use of recorded models in the instrumental rehearsal: effects
on ensemble achievement. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20:2, 21-26.
O’Herron, P. & Siebenaler, D. (2007). The intersection between vocal music and
language arts instruction: a review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 25:2, 16-26.
Orman, E. K. (2002). Comparison of the national standards for music education and
elementary music specialists’ use of class time. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 155-164.
Pearson, B. & Nowlin, R. (2010). Tradition of excellence: Comprehensive band method.
San Diego, CA: Kjos Music Press. Persellin, D. C. (2006). The effects of vocal modeling, musical aptitude, and home
environment on pitch accuracy of young children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 169, 39-50.
Polk, J. A. (2006). Traits of effective teachers. Arts Education Policy Review, 107, 23-
29. Puopolo, V. (1971). The development and experimental application of self-instructional
practice materials for beginning instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education 19, 342-349.
Randel, D. M. (1986). The new harvard dictionary of music. Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Roberts, J. (2002). Current practice strategy among professional trombonists: results of a
survey. ITA Journal, 30:1, 46-49.
85
Robinson, M. (1996). To sing or not to sing in instrumental class. Music Educators Journal, 83:1, 17-22.
Rosenthal, R. K. (1984). The relative effects of guided model, model only, guide only,
and practice only treatments on the accuracy of advanced instrumentalists’ musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 265-273.
Rosenthal, R. K., Wilson, M., Evans, M., & Greenwalt, L. (1988). Effects of different
practice conditions on advanced instrumentalists’ performance accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education 36:4, 250-257.
Sanborn, C. (1997). Lips: part 2. Canadian Musician, 19:3, 28. Sanborn, C. (2001). In the corners. Canadian Musician, 23:2, 30. Sanborn, C. (2003). Brass: lessons learned from the slide trumpet. Canadian Musician, 25:4, 30. Sanborn, C. (2004). Brass: your sound, Canadian Musician, 26:2, 30. Sang, R. C. (1987). A study of the relationship between instrumental music teachers’
modeling skills and pupil performance behaviors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 155-159.
Schleuter, S. L. (1974). Critiques: adaptation of certain aspect of the Suzuki method to
the teaching of the clarinet: an experimental comparative effectiveness of two different pedagogical methodologies. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 37, 46-48.
Schleuter, S. L. (1984). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalists. Kent, OH: Kent
State University Press. Sehmann, K. H. (2000). The effects of breath management instruction on the
performance of elementary brass players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 136-150.
South, A. L. (2013). An examination of middle school band students’ ability to match
pitch following short-term vocal technique training (unpublished masters’ thesis) Loyola University, New Orleans, LA.
Sperti, J. (1974). Adaptation of certain aspects of the Suzuki method to the teaching of
the clarinet: an experimental investigation testing the comparative effectiveness of two different pedagogical methodologies. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 37, 46-48.
86
Steele, N. A. (2010). Three characteristics of effective teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28:2, 71-78.
Taylor, D. M. (2006). Refining learned repertoire for percussion instruments in an
elementary setting. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 231-243. Thompson, J. (2001). The buzzing book. Vuarmarens, Switzerland: Editions Bim. Unverricht, B. (2008). Spotlight on brass: The care and feeding of young trombonists.
The Journal of the Canadian Band Association, 6:2, 72-75. Vernon, C. G. (1995). A “singing” approach to the trombone (and other brass). Atlanta,
GA: Atlanta Brass Society Press. Weast, R. D. (1965). Brass Performance: An analytical text of the physical processes,
problems and technique of brass. New York, NY: McGinnis & Marx, Publishers. Whitener, S. (2007). A complete guide to brass instruments and technique. Canada:
Thomson Schirmer. Wlodarczyk, N. (2010). The effect of audio and video modeling on beginning guitar
students’ ability to accurately sing and accompany a familiar melody on guitar by ear. Journal of Music Therapy, 47, 180-189.
Woody, R. H. (1999). The relationship between explicit planning and expressive
performance of dynamic variations in an aural modeling task. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 331-342.
Woody, R. H. (2003). Explaining expressive performance: Component cognitive skills in
an aural modeling task. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 51-63. Woody, R. H. (2006a). The effect of various instructional conditions on expressive music
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 21-36. Woody, R. H. (2006b). Musicians’ cognitive processing of imagery-based instructions for
expressive performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54:2, 125-137. Woody, R. H. & Lehmann, A. C. (2010). Student musicians’ ear-playing ability as a
function of vernacular music experiences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 101-115.
Worthy, M. D. & Thompson, B. L. (2009). Observing and analysis of expert teaching in
beginning band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 29-41.
87
Yarbrough, C., Green, G., Benson, W., & Bowers, J. (1991). Inaccurate singers: an exploratory study of variables affecting pitch-matching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 107, 23-24.
Yarbrough, C., Bowers, J., & Benson, W. (1992). The effect of vibrato on the pitch-
matching accuracy of certain and uncertain singers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40:1, 30-38.
Zingara, J. (2006). Help your student trumpeters scale the heights. Teaching Music, 13:5,
56-60. Zurcher, W. (1972). The effect of model-supportive practice on beginning brass
instrumentalists (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.
88
LIST OF APPENDICES
89
APPENDIX A: TEACHER INSTRUCTIONS
AND
MOUTHPIECE BUZZING ROUTINE
90
Teacher Instructions
1. Set metronome to 100 beats per minute.
2. Set reference pitch to a concert F.
3. Once all of the students are in place you may begin the routine.
4. Tell the students, “Repeat after me.” Then proceed through the routine.
5. Reminder: Every measure is repeated with the exception of the fourth line.
6. Reminder: Once the exercise has started do not stop unless it is absolutely necessary.
7. Mark the provided calendar with a checkmark for completion. Also in the calendar, write
down any anomalies that have occurred.
91
92
APPENDIX B: POSTTEST
93
94
APPENDIX C: POSTTEST PROCEDURE
95
Posttest Procedure
* Because students will be taking the posttest during normal rehearsal time, no warm-up time will be needed.
1. Welcome
2. Instrument tuning - Trumpet, trombone, and baritone/euphonium students tune to a concert F (G for trumpets). Horn students tune to his or her instrumental equivalent, G (concert C).
3. Note identification - Subjects identify each note and corresponding finger
combination/slide position.
4. Practice/Familiarization time - Subjects have 30 seconds to familiarize themselves with the music.
5. Practice - Subjects play the sequence one time on his or her
instrument to ensure the subject understands the music.
6. Correction time (if needed)
7. Posttest
a. Researcher: “After I press the record button, I will state your subject number, instrument, name, and class period. Next, I will play four clicks with the metronome. After the four clicks, you will play the music.”
b. Recording i. Researcher will push record.
ii. Researcher will state subject’s number, instrument, name, and class period.
iii. Researcher will play four clicks with a metronome iv. Subjects will play music
96
APPENDIX D: ADJUDICATOR LIST
AND
LETTER OF REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION
97
Letter of Request for Adjudicator Participation
Date
Name Address Address Address
Dear _____
In partial fulfillment of the degree requirements for a Ph.D. in Music with an emphasis in Music Education, I am conducting a research to determine if incorporating a mouthpiece buzzing regiment, as modeled by the teacher, has an effect on the performance of a beginning band brass student. Based on your musical expertise, I am requesting your assistance in evaluating audio recordings of performances of beginning band brass students. You will be asked to evaluate these recordings.
The total evaluation process should take no more than 45 minutes of your time. I will provide evaluation instructions, audio recordings, score sheets, and envelopes with return postage. If you will be able to participate, you will receive the audio recordings by February 13. You will have two weeks to complete the evaluations and return them to me by March 1. Whether you decide to participate or not, please complete and return the enclosed response form by February 1. Sincerely,
Jason W. Beghtol 2603 Huckleberry Tr. Tupelo, MS 38801 (662) 397-6150
98
Response Form
Please check the following: __________ Yes. I will be able to serve as an adjudicator in your study.
__________ No. I will not be able to serve as an adjudicator in your study.
__________ Yes. You may use my name in the list of judges participating in
this study.
__________ No. You may not use my name in the list of judges participating in
this study.
Name: _________________________________________________
Signature: _________________________________________________
Date: _________________________________________________
99
List of Adjudicators
Andy Hall Leslie Mitchell
806 Byrne St. 1677 Forest Hill Cove
New Albany, MS 38652 Belden, MS 38826
100
APPENDIX E: ADJUDICATION SHEET
AND
ADJUDICATOR INSTRUCTIONS
101
Adjudication Sheet
Performance #1
Tone Quality Subject #: ______ Instrument: ___________________
Please rate subjects’ overall tone quality: (circle your answer)
Uncharacteristic 1 2 3 4 5 Characteristic
Reference Chart
1 Tone is completely uncharacteristic for brass instrument.
2
Tone is mostly uncharacteristic for brass instrument.
3
Tone is somewhat characteristic for brass instrument.
4
Tone is mostly characteristic for brass instrument.
5
Tone is completely characteristic for brass instrument.
Performance #2
Tone Quality Subject #: ______ Instrument: ___________________
Please rate subjects’ overall tone quality: (circle your answer)
Uncharacteristic 1 2 3 4 5 Characteristic
Reference Chart
1 Tone is completely uncharacteristic for brass instrument.
2
Tone is mostly uncharacteristic for brass instrument.
3
Tone is somewhat characteristic for brass instrument.
4
Tone is mostly characteristic for brass instrument.
5
Tone is completely characteristic for brass instrument.
102
Letter for Adjudicators
Date Name Address Address Address
Dear [Mr./Ms. Name]:
Thank you again for agreeing to participate in this study. Enclosed you will find a CD of the subjects recordings, 25 adjudication sheets, and evaluation instructions. Please follow the instructions carefully and return the materials to me by March 1. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely,
Jason W. Beghtol 2603 Huckleberry Tr. Tupelo, MS 38801 (662) 397-6150
103
Evaluation Instructions for Adjudicators
The following materials will be needed for the evaluation process:
1. Sony CD Walkman D-EJ011 and Bose QuietComfort 15 Acoustic Noise Canceling Headphones (provided by researcher).
2. Pencil or Pen 3. Approximately 45 minutes of undisturbed time.
In the evaluation packet you will find the following materials:
1. CD of the subjects’ recordings 2. Adjudication sheets
You will be evaluating the tone quality of beginning band brass students. These students have been in the band program less than one year. You will be rating each subject’s performance based on a 5 point Likert-type scale where 1 is an uncharacteristic brass tone quality and 5 is a characteristic brass tone quality. Characteristic Brass Tone: According to Phillip Farkas (1956), a characteristic brass tone exemplifies desirable qualities of the instrument, such as a full, centered, dark, open, focused sound. Whereas an uncharacteristic brass tone is pinched, thin, tight, uncentered, and weak. Also, if the sound is too dark, too bright, too open, too closed, too big, or too soft, it may be cause for an uncharacteristic tone quality. Steps for Evaluation:
1. Please be sure you evaluate all performances at the same time in a quiet, undisturbed setting.
2. Please listen to and evaluate only one performance at a time.
3. After you have listened to a performance in its entirety, please rate the subjects’
overall tone quality. Please only score on the 5 point scale provided. Clearly circle your answer.
4. Once you have finished the score sheet for performance #1, proceed to the next
performance. Pause between performances if necessary.
5. Repeat the above steps for all performances.
6. Please note: I am NOT interested in having you rank the performances. If you feel some aspects of the performances are equal, he or she may receive the same score.
104
7. After you have completed all of the score sheets, place all of the materials in the
envelope provided and return to me by March 1.
Again, thank you very much for your participation in this study!
105
APPENDIX F: HUMAN SUBJECTS
AND
CONSENT FORMS
106
Consent Form
Title of Study
The Effect of an Author Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing Routine on the Intonation and Tone Quality of Beginning Band Brass Students. Performance Site Milam Elementary School – Grade 6 Investigator Jason Beghtol, University of Mississippi – [email protected] Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine if incorporating a daily mouthpiece buzzing regiment, as modeled by the teacher, has an effect on the performance of a beginning band brass students’ intonation and tone quality. Subjects Subjects are brass students enrolled in beginning band class and have less than one year of playing experience. Study Procedures The beginning band brass classes will be separated into experimental and control groups. The experimental group will receive the treatment of a brief daily mouthpiece buzzing routine delivered to them by his or her normal teacher at the beginning of each class meeting. The mouthpiece buzzing routine will be integrated into the students’ warm-up activities which occur at the beginning of the class period. The control group will proceed with normal classroom activities. The study will last for 10-weeks. At the conclusion of the 10-week period, the students will be involved in an individual “testing” session with the investigator. Participants will be recorded playing a short musical excerpt that will be collected and analyzed. All of the recordings will be kept confidential and stored in a secure environment. Benefits Subjects will be exposed to a technique that may have positive impact on his or her pitch accuracy and tone quality. The study may yield valuable information about beneficial brass techniques to be used in a beginning band setting. Risks There are no risks or stresses foreseen with this study. Right to Refuse Subjects may choose not to participate in, or to withdraw consent from, the study at any time without penalty or loss of any benefit to which they might otherwise be entitled.
107
Privacy Results of the study may be published, but no names or identifying information will be included in the publication. Subject identity will be confidential, and will not be released in any individually identifiable form without prior consent unless otherwise required by law. IRB Approval This study has been reviewed by The University of Mississippi’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study fulfills the human research subject protections obligations required by state and federal law and University policies. If you have any questions about subjects’ rights or other concerns, please contact the IRB at (662)-915-5006 or [email protected]. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information regarding specifics of this study. Signature I have read the above information. I agree to allow my child to participate in the study described above and acknowledge the investigator’s obligation to provide me with a signed copy of this consent form. Student’s Name: _________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian Signature: _________________________________________________
Date: ________________
108
Child Assent Form
I, _______________________________________, agree to be in a study to help determine if buzzing on my mouthpiece during band rehearsal will help me to play notes better and have a better sound. I understand that this study will require no extra time outside of class, but that I will be asked to play my instrument by myself in a separate room one time during band rehearsal. During this time, the person in charge of the study will use an iPad to record me and determine if I sound good and am playing my notes correctly. I can decide to stop being in the study at any time without getting in trouble. Child’s Signature: __________________________________ Age: ______ Date: ________________ *Witness: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ * (N.B. Witness must be present for the assent process, not just the signature by the minor)
109
APPENDIX G: FREQUENCY CHART
110
Table 3
Frequency Chart (in Hertz)
Instrument G A Bb C Eb D C Bb
Trumpet (concert pitch) 392.00 440.00 466.16 523.25 311.13 293.66 261.63 233.08
Trombone/Baritone 196.00 220.00 233.08 261.63 155.56 146.83 130.81 116.54
D E F G Bb A G F
Horn (equivalent pitch) 293.66 329.63 349.23 392.00 233.08 220.00 196.00 174.61
Note. Frequencies for equal-tempered scale, A4 = 440 Hz.
111
APPENDIX H: SUBJECTS’ RESULTS
IN
FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES
112
Table 4
Treatment Group Results for Intonation in Fundamental Frequencies (in Hertz)
Subject Instrument G(D) A(E) Bb(F) C(G) Eb(Bb) D(A) C(G) Bb(F)
1 baritone 198.5 219.2 231.25 258.5 155.5 145.05 130.08 115.4
2 baritone 197.2 221.05 237.4 264.8 157.75 149.35 133.5 117.3
3 trumpet 394.6 440.85 466.0 521.7 317.5 303.0 270.1 236.0
4 trumpet 397.2 443.8 474.3 527.5 316.25 294.35 268.95 240.2
5 trumpet 387.1 432.75 463.7 517.9 318.15 299.75 262.75 237.25
6 horn 290.55 324.85 309.0 262.6 231.7 220.4 198.8 177.0
7 horn 289.7 314.45 338.8 386.75 229.0 215.85 195.7 174.9
23 trumpet 393.2 432.0 474.05 526.4 316.0 299.65 267.2 232.35
24 trumpet 398.5 436.8 465.9 524.3 314.15 298.7 263.4 236.85
25 trumpet 391.95 438.6 464.7 422.3 315.25 383.6 336.2 234.8
26 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
27 trombone 200.3 209.85 233.7 203.1 152.0 146.45 132.1 118.0
28 baritone 197.8 220.0 234.85 264.6 156.7 147.05 132.25 113.85
29 trombone 206.95 216.1 234.85 260.5 157.3 149.65 131.0 118.0
30 trombone 197.3 217.9 207.1 205.6 153.4 142.4 181.6 174.3
31 trombone 198.2 211.1 233.05 254.6 150.1 145.1 131.65 116.4
32 trombone 200.45 211.35 235.6 259.8 151.75 145.75 132.65 116.9
113
33 trombone 194.45 194.4 190.3 189.4 157.65 150.35 141.6 146.9
34 baritone 193.3 214.1 229.3 256.15 154.7 146.95 131.9 114.4
35 trumpet 397.15 442.7 471.15 520.8 313.0 300.3 268.1 243.35
36 trumpet 392.85 440.95 472.9 522.1 311.2 291.45 264.25 235.4
37 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
38 trumpet 401.25 443.2 470.25 526.5 315.6 297.75 264.25 233.5
39 trombone 182.85 213.15 228.55 227.7 143.8 144.05 143.4 117.8
40 trombone 118.3 151.9 167.7 170.8 157.4 144.0 131.95 118.4
41 trombone 145.6 119.2 149.7 153.3 153.3 145.85 135.65 118.95
42 trombone 190.2 161.6 174.1 201.6 151.35 143.9 129.85 117.0
43 trombone 197.25 210.55 235.2 258.5 151.45 144.5 130.8 116.9
44 horn 295.0 320.55 345.5 389.9 233.95 222.1 203.0 174.15
Note. These frequencies are the average of the researcher’s and the researcher’s assistant’s frequency analysis. Notes are in concert pitch. Horn equivalent in parenthesis.
114
Table 5
Control Group Results for Intonation in Fundamental Frequencies (in Hertz)
Subject Instrument G(D) A(E) Bb(F) C(G) Eb(Bb) D(A) C(G) Bb(F)
8 horn 290.65 324.3 346.3 389.9 232.2 217.5 197.65 174.25
9 horn 299.3 324.6 345.55 392.6 231.3 220.1 201.9 253.3
10 horn 289.5 308.8 301.6 308.9 229.1 215.45 196.4 176.85
11 trumpet 397.7 444.4 471.95 524.4 315.3 294.6 263.75 238.3
12 trumpet 385.3 333.8 349.6 318.1 317.85 302.55 274.4 243.5
13 trombone 198.75 212.55 235.5 250.5 153.3 149.3 151.4 160.3
14 trombone 196.45 158.9 232.05 259.4 154.9 145.4 133.0 119.8
15 trumpet 382.4 414.5 412.8 380.4 381.4 363.5 272.95 239.6
16 baritone 197.3 220.3 236.4 264.7 156.8 146.15 131.6 116.15
17 baritone 196.6 217.0 233.05 249.9 155.3 144.75 129.85 113.05
18 baritone 198.1 218.85 234.8 251.5 156.75 148.15 136.1 116.25
19 baritone 191.85 198.35 190.7 189.6 164.45 155.0 162.8 168.5
20 trumpet 396.6 445.7 469.8 521.9 315.4 299.35 265.65 236.85
21 trombone 201.95 217.8 234.9 265.2 213.9 138.25 127.1 117.85
22 trumpet 402.9 444.2 302.2 317.7 319.5 300.0 269.4 236.45
45 trombone 197.65 206.55 225.85 246.8 155.1 147.7 132.9 115.75
Note. These frequencies are the average of the researcher’s and the researcher’s assistant’s frequency analysis. Notes are in concert pitch. Horn equivalent in parenthesis.
115
APPENDIX I: SUBJECTS’ RESULTS
IN
CENT DEVIATION
116
Table 6
Treatment Group Results for Intonation in Cent Deviation
Subject Instrument G(D) A(E) Bb(F) C(G) Eb(Bb) D(A) C(G) Bb(F)
1 baritone 21.94 -6.31 -13.65 -20.84 -0.67 -21.12 -9.69 -17.02
2 baritone 10.57 8.24 31.79 20.85 24.20 29.46 35.24 11.25
3 trumpet 11.44 3.34 -0.59 -5.14 35.09 54.21 55.16 21.55
4 trumpet 22.81 14.89 29.97 14.00 28.26 4.06 47.77 52.10
5 trumpet -21.78 -28.76 -9.16 -17.79 38.63 35.54 7.40 30.70
6 horn -18.43 -25.29 -211.88 -693.58 -10.28 3.14 24.56 23.54
7 horn -23.50 -81.62 -52.49 -23.34 -30.57 -32.97 -2.65 2.87
23 trumpet 5.29 -31.77 29.06 10.39 26.89 34.96 36.47 -5.43
24 trumpet 28.47 -12.64 -0.97 3.47 16.72 29.46 11.67 27.78
25 trumpet -0.22 -5.52 -5.43 -371.08 22.77 462.55 434.15 12.73
26 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
27 trombone 37.57 -81.77 4.60 -438.41 -40.08 -4.49 16.99 21.55
28 baritone 15.83 0 13.10 19.54 12.64 2.59 18.95 -40.43
29 trombone 94.11 -30.97 13.10 -7.50 19.26 32.93 2.51 21.55
30 trombone 11.44 -16.60 -204.60 -417.23 -20.21 -53.04 567.95 696.90
31 trombone 19.32 -71.49 -0.22 -47.15 -61.86 -20.52 11.08 -2.08
32 trombone 38.87 -69.44 18.62 -12.15 -49.93 -12.78 24.18 5.34
117
33. trombone -13.75 -214.17 -351.06 -559.31 23.10 41.01 137.22 400.81
34. baritone -24.01 -47.06 -28.31 -36.65 -9.60 1.41 14.37 -32.09
35 trumpet 22.60 10.59 18.43 -8.13 10.37 38.71 42.29 74.65
36 trumpet 3.75 3.73 24.85 -3.81 0.40 -13.08 17.25 17.15
37 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
38 trumpet 40.38 12.55 15.12 10.72 24.70 23.95 17.25 3.12
39 trombone -120.23 -54.76 -33.98 -240.47 -136.09 -33.10 159.09 18.62
40 trombone -874.08 -641.26 -569.93 -738.26 20.36 -33.69 15.02 27.41
41 trombone -514.61 -1060.94 -766.50 -925.40 -25.34 -11.59 62.90 35.44
42 trombone -52.00 -534.09 -505.09 -451.24 -47.50 -34.90 -12.75 6.82
43 trombone 11.01 -76.01 15.68 -20.84 -46.36 -27.70 -0.13 5.34
44 horn 7.88 -48.36 -18.59 -9.30 6.45 16.45 60.75 -4.57
Note. Notes are in concert pitch. Horn equivalent in parenthesis.
118
Table 7
Control Group Results for Intonation in Cent Deviation
Subject Instrument G(D) A(E) Bb(F) C(G) Eb(Bb) D(A) C(G) Bb(F)
8 horn -17.84 -28.22 -14.59 -9.30 -6.55 -19.79 14.51 -3.57
9 horn 32.93 -26.62 -18.34 2.65 -13.27 0.79 51.34 644.05
10 horn -24.70 -113.01 -253.85 -412.46 -29.82 -36.18 3.53 22.07
11 trumpet 24.99 17.23 21.37 3.80 23.05 5.53 13.97 38.34
12 trumpet -29.85 -478.22 -498.14 -861.62 36.99 51.63 82.50 75.72
13 trombone 24.12 -59.64 17.88 -75.26 -25.34 35.82 253.07 551.94
14 trombone 3.97 -563.26 -7.67 -14.82 -7.36 -16.94 28.74 47.76
15 trumpet -42.93 -103.36 -210.46 -551.98 352.54 369.37 73.33 47.76
16 baritone 11.44 2.36 24.49 20.20 13.75 -8.04 10.42 -5.80
17 baritone 5.29 -23.77 -0.22 -79.41 -2.90 -24.70 -12.75 -52.64
18 baritone 18.45 -9.07 12.73 -68.36 13.19 15.49 68.63 -4.31
19 baritone -37.05 -179.35 -347.42 -557.48 96.21 93.75 378.75 638.31
20 trumpet 20.20 22.28 13.47 -4.47 23.60 33.22 26.40 27.78
21 trombone 51.77 -17.40 13.47 23.46 551.36 -104.24 -49.81 19.35
22 trumpet 47.48 16.45 -750.39 -863.80 45.96 36.98 50.67 24.85
45 trombone 14.5 -109.21 -54.55 -101.02 -5.13 10.23 27.44 -11.78
Note. Notes are in concert pitch. Horn equivalent in parenthesis.
119
Table 8
Range and Mean for Intonation in Cent Deviation-Treatment Group
Subject Instrument Range Mean
1 baritone 43.06 -8.42
2 baritone 27.0 21.45
3 trumpet 60.3 21.88
4 trumpet 48.04 26.73
5 trumpet 67.39 4.35
6 horn 718.14 -113.45
7 horn 84.49 -30.53
23 trumpet 68.24 13.23
24 trumpet 42.1 13.0
25 trumpet 833.63 68.74
26 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
27 trombone 475.98 -60.51
28 baritone 59.97 5.28
29 trombone 125.08 18.12
30 trombone 1114.13 70.58
31 trombone 90.81 -21.62
32 trombone 108.31 -7.16
120
33 trombone 960.12 -67.02
34 baritone 61.43 -20.24
35 trumpet 82.78 26.19
36 trumpet 37.93 6.28
37 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
38 trumpet 37.26 18.47
39 trombone 399.56 -55.12
40 trombone 901.49 -349.30
41 trombone 1123.84 -400.77
42 trombone 540.91 -203.95
43 trombone 91.69 -17.38
44 horn 109.11 1.34
121
Table 9
Range and Mean for Intonation in Cent Deviation-Control Group
Subject Instrument Range Mean
8 horn 42.73 -10.67
9 horn 617.43 84.19
10 horn 434.53 -105.55
11 trumpet 34.54 18.54
12 trumpet 944.12 -202.62
13 trombone 627.2 90.32
14 trombone 611.02 -66.20
15 trumpet 921.35 -8.22
16 baritone 32.53 8.60
17 baritone 84.7 -23.89
18 baritone 136.99 5.84
19 baritone 1195.79 10.72
20 trumpet 37.69 20.31
21 trombone 655.6 61.00
22 trumpet 914.47 -173.98
45 trombone 136.65 -28.69
122
Table 10
Intonation Mean and Standard Deviation
Treatment Group (n = 27) Control Group (n = 16)
Pitch M SD M SD
G/D -46.64 196.74 6.42 29.14
A/E -114.28 244.67 -103.30 173.18
Bb/F (high) -94.75 209.88 -128.26 228.46
C/G (high) -184.02 281.02 -221.87 317.77
Eb/Bb -6.25 39.15 66.64 157.74
D/A 18.94 93.24 27.68 101.09
C/G (low) 66.48 132.53 63.80 106.43
Bb/F (low) 52.43 150.65 128.74 242.03
Note. Pitches are in order of posttest. The second pitch is the sounding concert pitch for F Horn.
123
APPENDIX J: ADJUDICATORS’ RATINGS
FOR
TONE QUALITY
124
Table 11
Adjudicators’ Ratings for Tone Quality-Treatment Group
Subject Instrument Adjudicator 1 Adjudicator 2 Total
1 baritone 4 4 8
2 baritone 3 4 7
3 trumpet 3 4 7
4 trumpet 3 3 6
5 trumpet 3 3 6
6 horn 2 1 3
7 horn 3 3 6
23 trumpet 3 3 6
24 trumpet 3 4 7
25 trumpet 2 2 4
26 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
27 trombone 3 4 7
28 baritone 4 3 7
29 trombone 3 3 6
30 trombone 3 2 5
31 trombone 3 4 7
32 trombone 3 3 6
125
33 trombone 3 3 6
34 baritone 3 4 7
35 trumpet 3 4 7
36 trumpet 3 4 7
37 trumpet (posttested but excluded due to attendance under 80%)
38 trumpet 3 2 5
39 trombone 3 1 4
40 trombone 2 1 3
41 trombone 2 2 4
42 trombone 3 3 6
43 trombone 3 4 7
44 horn 3 3 6
126
Table 12
Adjudicators’ Ratings for Tone Quality-Control Group
Subject Instrument Adjudicator 1 Adjudicator 2 Total
8 horn 3 4 7
9 horn 2 3 5
10 horn 4 3 7
11 trumpet 4 3 7
12 trumpet 3 4 7
13 trombone 2 3 5
14 trombone 3 2 5
15 trumpet 1 1 2
16 baritone 4 4 8
17 baritone 3 4 7
18 baritone 2 1 3
19 baritone 3 1 4
20 trumpet 4 4 8
21 trombone 3 2 5
22 trumpet 1 1 2
45 trombone 2 2 4
127
Table 13
Tone Quality Mean and Standard Deviation
Group n M SD
Treatment 27 5.93 1.33
Control 16 5.38 2.00
128
APPENDIX K: IMAGES
OF
COMMON EMBOUCHURE PROBLEMS
129
Figure 2. Common Embouchure Problems-“Smile” Embouchure
Figure 2. The “Smile” Embouchure by Jason Beghtol, 2017. The “smile” embouchure, which is sometimes referred to as the stretch embouchure, is in reference to the corners of the mouth being upward as opposed to downward causing the embouchure to appear as if it were in the form of a smile.
130
Figure 3. Common Embouchure Problems-Excessive Pucker
Figure 3. The “Excessive Pucker” Embouchure by Jason Beghtol, 2017. The “excessive pucker” refers to the lip formation of the embouchure protruding outward as opposed to the optimal slightly inward roll of the lips.
131
Figure 4. Common Embouchure Problems-“Bunched-up” Chin
Figure 4. “Bunched-Up” Chin by Jason Beghtol, 2017. The “bunched-up” chin, or sometimes referred to as a “peach pit” chin, occurs when the chin is pronounced excessively upward when the ideal position is for it to be slightly down and out.
132
Figure 5. Common Embouchure Problems-“Puffed-out” Cheeks
Figure 5. “Puffed-Out” Cheeks by Jason Beghtol, 2017. “Puffed-out” cheeks are created by weak embouchure muscles allowing the cheeks to inflate disturbing the air flow from the lungs to the instrument.
133
Figure 6. Common Embouchure Problems-Excessive Pressure
Figure 6. Excessive Pressure by Jason Beghtol, 2017. Excessive pressure exists when musicians push the mouthpiece against their face more than necessary.
134
APPENDIX L: IRB APPLICATION
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
VITA
Jason William Beghtol is currently teaching at Northeast Mississippi Community College
where he is the assistant band director, jazz band director, and professor of brass.
He holds a B.M. and M.M. degree in music education from the University of Mississippi
where he studied trombone with Milton Aldana and Donn Schaefer. He also holds a M.M. degree
in trombone performance from Florida State University, studying trombone with John Drew. Mr.
Beghtol is currently working on his Ph.D. in music education from the University of Mississippi.
Beghtol is the bass trombonist in the North Mississippi Symphony Orchestra of which he
has been a member since 2005. In 2011, Beghtol premiered Titan’s Gaze by Nathaniel Murphy, a
piece for solo bass trombone with wind band and choir accompaniment. He has premiered other
works by Nathaniel Murphy, such as: There’s a Fork in My T-Bone, Joust, Steam Punk, Doppler
Shift, and Toy Box. Beghtol is also the bass trombonist for the Mississippi Trombone Authority, a
trombone quartet comprised of college professors. He has also performed with the Starkville
Symphony Orchestra, Tallahassee Symphony Orchestra, Tallahassee Ballet Orchestra, and
Corinth Symphony. He performs across the southeast as a soloist and as a chamber and
orchestral musician. Beghtol has also worked with or played with artists, such as: Kim Adair,
Scott Bernard, Jeff Coffin & the Mu’tet, Wycliffe Gordon, Mac McAnally, Bobby McFerrin,
Jermaine Morgan, Sam Mosley, Adam Nitti, Rashawn Ross, the Red Stone Jazz Project, Ron
Wilkins, and Roy “Futureman” Wooten.
143
Prior to coming to NEMCC, Mr. Beghtol taught 4 years in the Tupelo Public School
District where he was the assistant band director under Floyd Stevens and Vance Wigginton. In
2006, the Tupelo High School band was the 5A state champion. During this time, Beghtol was
also employed as an adjunct professor at Itawamba Community College.
In addition to his teaching and performing duties, Beghtol does some composing,
arranging, and clinician work for both band and studio events. Beghtol is the creator of the Fire
& Ice saga. Fire & Ice is a series of compositions for trombone trio and percussion with a
continuing story line and graphics based around a unique superhero made of ice affixed with
bionic legs.
144
JASON W. BEGHTOL
2603 Huckleberry Trail Tupelo, MS 38801 Email: [email protected] soundcloud.com/jason-beghtol EXPERIENCE Northeast Mississippi Community College 2008-Present
Assistant Band Director, Jazz Band Director, Applied Brass, Concert Band Director, Music Appreciation, Fundamentals of Music, Various Brass Ensembles
Tupelo High School 2004-2008
Assistant Band Director, Freshman Band Director, Concert Band Director, Beginning Brass, Middle-school Brass MHSAA State Marching Championship; First Place in Division 5A, 2006 THS Indoor Trombone Line (Typhoon), 2006
Itawamba Community College 2006-2008 Adjunct Professor, Music Appreciation PERFORMING North Mississippi Symphony Orchestra – bass trombone 2005-Present Starkville Symphony Orchestra – substitute 2011-2014 Tallahassee Symphony Orchestra – bass trombone 2002-2004 Tallahassee Ballet Orchestra – bass trombone 2002 Corinth Symphony Orchestra – bass trombone 1999, 2001, 2008
145
The Renaissance Men 2014-Present NE Trio 2013-Present Mississippi Trombone Authority 2009-2013 Mississippi Trombone Alliance 2004-2006 EDUCATION University of Mississippi – Ph.D. Music Education In Progress The Florida State University – M.M. Music Performance 2004 University of Mississippi – M.M. Music Education 2002 University of Mississippi – B.M. Music Education 2001 PUBLISHED WORKS Fire & Ice, vol. 1 (ASCAP): Trombone trio with percussion, Cherry Classics Music Fire & Ice, vol. 2 (ASCAP): Trombone trio with percussion, Reb-Nole Publishing Co. “Fire & Ice: An original musical superhero adventure for trombone trio and
percussion,” ITA Journal. July 2013, vol. 41: no. 3, 10-11 Brothers (ASCAP): Duet for trombone, or trumpet, Cherry Classics Music, Reb-Nole
Publishing Co. The Star Spangled Banner: Trombone Trio, Tap Music Sales Come Again, Sweet Love (Dowland/Beghtol): Solo trombone, or trumpet, with piano,
Cherry Classics Music
146
Les Berceaux (Faure/Beghtol): Solo trombone, or trumpet, with piano, Cherry Classics Music
Two Works for Three Trombones: Trombone trio, Reb-Nole Publishing Co. Beginning Brass Buzzing Warm-up: Reb- Nole Publishing Co. OTHER Artist for the Edwards Instrument Company Performed at the International Trombone Festival: The Cramer Choir, 2013 Performed at the American Trombone Workshop, 2014 Premiered Titan’s Gaze by Nathaniel Murphy, solo bass trombone, wind band, and
choir Premiered Joust by Nathaniel Murphy, duet for tenor and bass trombone Premiered Steam Punk by Nathaniel Murphy, solo bass trombone and recording NEMCC Teaching Outstanding Performance (TOP) Award, 2014 Orff-Schulwerk – Levels I & II Directed the University of Mississippi Alumni Reading Band: UM Jazz Reunion Played or worked with: Kim Adair, Scott Bernard, Jeff Coffin & the Mu’tet, Wycliffe
Gordon, Mac McAnally, Bobby McFerrin, Jermaine Morgan, Sam Mosley, Adam Nitti, Rashawn Ross, Ron Wilkins, Roy “Futureman” Wooten, and the Red Stone Jazz Project
147
VOICE WORK Announcing – Marching Band Festivals: Crossroads Marching Classic, Conquistador
Classic Marching Festival, and MHSAA Region I Marching Festival Announcing – Indoor Marching Festivals: Alcorn Central Contest, Itawamba HS
Contest, Northeast Indoor Championship, South Pontotoc HS Contest, and Artistry in Motion
Narration/VO: Condemned by Faith, Mantachie HS Marching Band, Mooreville HS
Marching Band, Tupelo HS Marching Band, Tupelo HS Indoor Drumline Master of Ceremonies: Northeast Parade of Beauties